An Introduction t o the Basic5

of Well C0mpletion5~
*
3
5timulations
and Workovers
I

15,OOOpsi wellhead
working pressure
for all surface

2nd Edition
(Version 2.05)

Rubble Zone
S e t liner hanger a t 10,800 ft.

with retarder

PBR s e t a t 12,300 ft.

Hot, High Fi-essure G a s

George King

An Introduction to the Basics of Well

Completions, Stimulations and
Workovers
2nd edition
(version 2.05)

George E. King

Copyright 1988-1998 by George E. King, TuIsa, Oklahoma

Copyright 1988-1996 by George E. King

Document may not be copied in any manner

Inquiries to:
4

George E. King
5555 S. 97 W. Ave.
Sand Springs, OK 74063
(918) 446-7081
(918) 660-3226

Table of Contents
Introduction: Basic Well Completion Concepts .....................................................

1-1
Porosity .......................................................................................................
1-1
Saturation ...................................................................................................
1-2
Permeability ................................................................................................
1-2
Relative Permeability ..................................................................................
1-2
Natural Fractures ........................................................................................ 1-3
Reservoir Pressure ..................................................................................... 1-3
Pressures ................................................................................................... 1-4
Pressure Differential ...................................................................................
1-5
Well Temperature ....................................................................................... 1-5
Fluid Properties ..........................................................................................
i-6
High Temperature and High Pressure Wells ..............................................
1-6
Introduction: Geology ................................................................................................. 11-1
Formation Sequences and Layering .......................................................... ...11-4

Well Planning ...............................................................................................................

Drilling the Pay, Selecting the Interval and the Initial Design ..........................

111-1
1-1

Coiled Tubing Drilling .......................................................................................

1-6
Underbalanced Drilling ....................................................................................
1-6
Slimholes .........................................................................................................
1-7
Initial Completion Design ...............................................................................
1-7
Selecting the Pay Zone ....................................................................................
1-7
References - Drilling ....................................................................................
1-12
Other References ......................................................................................... 1-12

Casing Design ..............................................................................................................

Open Hole Completions ...........................................................................

Cased Hole Completions ..........................................................................
Description of Casing Strings ...................................................................
Casing Clearance .....................................................................................
Connections ..............................................................................................
Casing Weights and Grades .....................................................................
Casing Design Safety Factors ..................................................................
Load Description .......................................................................................
Casing String Design .....................................................................................
API Equations .........................................................................................
Buoyancy ................................................................................................
Example 2.1 ............................................................................................
Collapse Design - Non-API Method ........................................................
Example 2.2 - Single String Casing Design ............................................
Example 2.3 - Casing Design - Intermediate String ................................
Design a 9-5/8"Intermediate String ........................................................
Final Design ............................................................................................
High Pressure Gas .................................................................................
Additional Graphical Illustrations ............................................................
Running The Casing ...............................................................................
Casing String Design - Deviated Wells ..........................................................
Liner Design ...................................................................................................
Example 2.4 - Liner Design ....................................................................
Liner Tie-Backs ..............................................................................................
Cementing .....................................................................................................

-1-

2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-7
2-14
2-14
2-16
2-17
2-18
2-22
2-26
2-26
2-30
2-30
2-30
2-30
2-34
2-36
2-36
2-38
2-39

Problems

........................................................................................................

References ..................................................................................................
Other References ........................................................................................

2-42

2-42
2-45

Casing Horizontal Wells .................................................................................

Reach Interval .........................................................................................
Rotation and Torque ................................................................................
The Build Interval ....................................................................................
Bending Stress ........................................................................................
Vertical Interval ........................................................................................
Application ...............................................................................................

Cement Density .........................................................................................

Fluid Loss ..................................................................................................
Factors Affecting Cement ..........................................................................
Cementing Design ............................................................................................
Primary Cementing ...........................................................................................
Application .................................................................................................
Cementing Calculations ..........................................................................
Balanced Plug Setting .............................................................................
Squeeze Cementing ................................................................................
Cement Squeeze Tools ...........................................................................
Liner Cementing ......................................................................................
Frictional Pressure Dropin Pipe ...............................................................

2-54
2-54
2-55
2-55
2-56
2-57
2-58
3-1
3-4
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-6
3.7
3.14
3.15
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-19

Production Packers ...................................................................................

Special Equipment ....................................................................................
Dressing Packers ......................................................................................
Allowing Tubing Movement .......................................................................
Effects of Temperature ..............................................................................
Deep Completions .....................................................................................
Seal Considerations ..................................................................................
Seal Problems ...........................................................................................
Tubing and Packer Forces ........................................................................
Length or Force Changes? ......................................................................
Setting the Packer ...................................................................................
Combined Forces ....................................................................................
Special Packers ..............................................................................................
Tubing Stretch and Compression ............................................................
Problems ........................................................................................................

4. 1
4. 1
4-3
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-8
4.9
4-9
4-13
4-14
4-16
4-17
4-17
4-17

Cementing ......................................................................................................................

References .................................................................................................. 3-20

Cementing: Review Questions ....................................................................
3-23
Packer Selection and Tubing Forces ...................................................................... 4.1

References ..................................................................................................
Well Heads, Chokes and SSSVs ...............................................................................

Wellheads ........................................................................................................
Subsea Wellheads ............................................................................................
Coiled Tubing Well Heads ................................................................................
Hydrate Control in Coiled Tubing Completions ................................................
Chokes .............................................................................................................
Subsurface Safety Valves ................................................................................

4-18
5-1
5-1
5-3
5-5
5-5
5-7
5-8

References

...................................................................................................

5-12

Corrosion and Erosion ...............................................................................................

6-1
6-1
6-2
6-2
6-4
6-5
6-1 0
6-1 1
6-12
6-13
6-14
6-1 4
6-14
6-1 4
6-15

Corrosion .........................................................................................................
The Corrosion Circuit ................................................................................
Chemical Reaction ...................................................................................
Acid Gases ...............................................................................................
Controlling Corrosion ................................................................................
Materials for Sour Service ......................................................................
CO2 Corrosion ........................................................................................
Other Factors ...........................................................................................
Corrosion by Stimulation Acids ...............................................................
Destruction of Elastomers ......................................................................
Microbial Corrosion .................................................................................
Nonmetallic Tubulars ..............................................................................
Predictive Techniques and Inspection Devices ......................................
Erosion ...........................................................................................................
Corrosion References ..................................................................................
6-17

Inflow Performance, Tubing Selection, and Artificial Lift ..................................

7-1
Inflow Performance ...................................................................................
7-1
Tubing Design ..........................................................................................
7-2
Heading ....................................................................................................
7-8
Tubing Design ..........................................................................................
7-9
Artificial Lift ...............................................................................................
7-9
Rod Pump ...............................................................................................
7-1 0
Rod Pump ...............................................................................................
7-12
Gas Lift ...................................................................................................
7-1 6
Electrical Submersible Pump .................................................................. 7-1 6
Other Systems ........................................................................................
7-1 6
Lift Selection ...........................................................................................
7-1 6
Reservoir Fluid Classification ................................................................. 7-1 7

References

...................................................................................................

Special Completions (Deviated, Thermal Multiples, and Multi-Laterals)

7-19

.......8-1

Deviated Completions ......................................................................................

Descriptions ..............................................................................................
Horizontal Well Candidate Selection ...............................................................
Horizontal Completions Background ...............................................................
Path of the Horizontal Section .........................................................................
Artificial Lift Options .........................................................................................
Solids Control Techniques ...............................................................................
Fracturing ...............................................................................................
Increasing Reservoir Contact ........................................................................
Logging ...................................................................................................
Wellbore Stability ....................................................................................
Perforating ..............................................................................................
CorrosionErosion ...................................................................................
Gravel Packs ..........................................................................................
Coning Control ........................................................................................
Heading Problems .........................................................................................
Multi-lateral Completions ...............................................................................

8-1
8- 1
8-2
8-3
8-7
8-8
8-9
8-1 0
8-12
8-13
8-15
8-17
8-18
8-19
8-19
8-21
8-21

Lateral Technology Levels ...................................................................... 8.22

Candidate List .................................................................................................
8.24
The candidate list for design is still forming but has the following considerations:

8-24
Thermal Completions .....................................................................................
Steam Projects ........................................................................................
Combustion Projects ...............................................................................
Alternate Heating Methods ......................................................................
Stimulation ...............................................................................................
Corrosion and Scale ................................................................................
Insulation .................................................................................................
Tubular Design ........................................................................................
Cementing Considerations ......................................................................
Completions ............................................................................................
Coalbed Methane Wells .................................................................................
Multiple Completions ......................................................................................
Tubingless Completions ..........................................................................
Selection of a Completion .......................................................................
Monobores ..............................................................................................
Coiled Tubing Completions ............................................................................

References

..................................................................................................

Logging ...........................................................................................................
Stress in an Deviated Well .............................................................................
Well Completion Problems .............................................................................
Productivity Estimates ....................................................................................

Perforating .....................................................................................................................

Temperature Effect ....................................................................................

Perforation Size .........................................................................................
Calculated Pressure Drop .......................................................................
Partial Completion ...................................................................................
Underbalance Perforating .......................................................................
Extreme Overbalance Perforating ...........................................................
Tubing Conveyed Perforating ..................................................................
Wireline Perforating .................................................................................
Highly Deviated Wells .............................................................................
Depth Control ..........................................................................................
Cement Damage .....................................................................................
Casing Damage .......................................................................................
Repetiorating Considerations ..................................................................
Stimulation Considerations ......................................................................
Stimulations in Deviated Wells - Effect of Perfs ......................................
AbrasiveErosive Perforating ...................................................................
Pipe Cutoff Methods .......................................................................................
Questions ................................................................................................

References - Perforating ..............................................................................

Formation Damage Causes and Preventions ...................................................

Clays ...............................................................................................................
Common Types of Clay ...........................................................................
Water lmbibition of Clays ........................................................................

.iv .

8.25
8-25
8-26
8.26
8.26
8-27
8-28
8-28
8.30
8.3 1
8-32
8-35
8.36
8-38
8-38
8-40

8-42
8-50
8-50
8-52
8.53
9.1
9-6
9-6
9-16
9-16
9-17
9-19
9-19
9-21
9-22
9.22
9.23
9-23
9-24
9-25
9-26
9-26
9-27
9-27
9-28
10-1
10-6
10-8
10-9

Clay Swelling ..........................................................................................

Clay Dispersion ......................................................................................
Other Clay Problems ............................................................................
Paraffins and Asphaltenes ...........................................................................
Emulsions ....................................................................................................
Dispersions ..................................................................................................
Foams ..........................................................................................................
Froth ............................................................................................................
Wettability Problems ....................................................................................
Hydrates ......................................................................................................
Scales ..........................................................................................................
Calcite ...................................................................................................
Calcium Sulfate ....................................................................................
Barium Sulfate ......................................................................................
Strontium Sulfate ..................................................................................
Other Scales .........................................................................................
Particulate Damage .....................................................................................
Drilling Mud ...........................................................................................
Cements ...............................................................................................
Kill Fluids ..............................................................................................
Dirty Water ............................................................................................
Bacteria Problems ................................................................................
Effects of Formation Damage on Production ...............................................
Rate and Skin .......................................................................................
Example 70.7 ........................................................................................
Example 70.2 ........................................................................................
Example 70.3 ........................................................................................
Using Production History Curves to Assess Damage ..................................
Example 70.4 ........................................................................................
Workover Candidate Selection ....................................................................
Example 70.5 ........................................................................................
Formation Damage - Questions ...................................................................

10-9
10-9
10-10
10-11
10-13
10-15
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-17
10-18
10-18
10-19
10-21
10-2 1
10-22
10-22
10-22
10-22
10-22
10-22
10-22
10-23
10-23
10-23
10-27
10-28
10-28
10-28
10-29
10-29
10-30

...............................................................................................
Inflow Performance ......................................................................................
Equations of Flow ...................................................................................
Decline Curves ............................................................................................
System Pressures ........................................................................................

11-4

References .................................................................................................
10-30
Formation and Damage Diagnosis ........................................................................ 11-1
Drill Stem Test (DST) ................................................................................... 11-1
Nodal Analysis

Fluid Analysis .............................................................................................

Transient Tests ..........................................................................................
Reservoir Logging Methods .......................................................................
Gamma Ray Logging ............................................................................
Acoustic or Sonic Logging ....................................................................
Neutron Logging ...................................................................................
Density Logging ....................................................................................
Natural Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Log ...............................................

-V-

11-5
11-9
11-15
11-16
1 1-18

11-21
11-28
11-28
11-28
11-29
11-29
11-30

Induced Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Log ...............................................

Open-Hole Logging ...............................................................................
Depth of lnvasion ..................................................................................
Other Logs .............................................................................................
Cased Hole Logging ..............................................................................

1 1-30
1 1-30
1 1-35
1 1-36
1 1-37
Electric Logging Tool Response ................................................................
11-38
Direct Borehole Investigation ................................................................
1 1-40
Formation Tester ...................................................................................
1 1-41
Fluid Movement Surveys .............................................................................. 1 1-42
Fluid Surveys - Formation ............................................................................
11-43
Fluid Surveys - Wellbore .............................................................................. 1 1-43
Noise Logging .......................................................................................
1 1 -46
Borehole Surveys .................................................................................. 1 1-47
Mapping .....................................................................................................
11-47
Completion and Lift Analysis .....................................................................
11-50
Production and Operations Information .....................................................
11-50
Rock Mechanics Information From Logs ................................................... 11-51
Mechanical Properties ...........................................................................
1 1-53
Basic Logging Tool Response ...................................................................
11-55
Gamma Ray Logging .................................................................................
'11-56
Acoustic or Sonic Logging .........................................................................
11-56
Neutron Logging ........................................................................................ 11-56
Density Logging ......................................................................................... 11-57
11-57
Natural Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Log ....................................................
11-57
Induced Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Log ...................................................
11-58
References ................................................................................................
Chemical and Thermal Stimulation ........................................................................
12-1
Example 12.1 ..........................................................................................
12-2
Example 12.2 ..........................................................................................
12-2
Selecting a Candidate Well ............................................................................
12-3
Evaluation of Stimulations ..............................................................................
12-3
Selective Stimulation ......................................................................................
12-4
Diverting vs. Fluid Loss Control .............................................................. .l 2-4
Candidates .............................................................................................. 12-4
Diverter Operation ...................................................................................
12-5
Limited Entry (Pressure Differential Diverting) ....................................... .12-5
Mechanical Diverting ............................................................................... 12-6
Chemical Diverlers ................................................................................ 12-11
lnterface Treatments .............................................................................
12-14
Diverler/Fluid Loss Control Stages ........................................................ 12-15
HCVHF Treatment Diversion ................................................................. 12-17
Recommendations ................................................................................
1 2-17
Cleanup .................................................................................................
12-18
Packoff Techniques ...............................................................................
12-18
Technology of Bridging .......................................................................... 12-18
Depth of Diversion .................................................................................
12-18
Chemical Stimulation Techniques ................................................................ 12-19
Acidizing ................................................................................................
12-19
HF Acid Spending Rates ..............................................................................
12-20

-vi-

Solvents .......................................................................................................
Gases ..........................................................................................................
Surfactants ...................................................................................................
Reactants .....................................................................................................
Treatment Types ..........................................................................................
Damage Removal ........................................................................................
Reaction Rate Factors .................................................................................
Temperature .........................................................................................
Pressure ...............................................................................................
Area Volume Ratio ...............................................................................
Acid Concentration ...............................................................................
Acid Selection .......................................................................................
Formation Composition ........................................................................
Additives ......................................................................................................
Surfactants ...........................................................................................
Weffability .............................................................................................
Mutual Solvents ....................................................................................
Wash Design ...............................................................................................
Wellbore Cleanup and Acid Wash ........................................................
Solvent Wash of Injection Wells ...........................................................
Perforation Breakdown .........................................................................
Extreme Overbalance Perforating ...............................................................
Matrix Acidizing Design ...............................................................................
Obtaining the Required Information ......................................................
Designing the Treatment ......................................................................
Thermal Stimulation .....................................................................................
Chemical Heat Generation ...................................................................

References .................................................................................................

Granular Salt ........................................................................................

100-Mesh Sand ....................................................................................
Calcium Carbonate ...............................................................................
Naphthalene .........................................................................................
Benzoic Acid Flakes .............................................................................
Wax Beads ...........................................................................................
Organic Resin Beads ............................................................................
Organic Resin Dispersions ...................................................................
Micron Size Patticulates .......................................................................
Poiymers ...............................................................................................
Others ...................................................................................................

Fracturing ....................................................................................................................

Recovery by Fracturing ..................................................................................

Fracturing Economics ....................................................................................
Fracturing Length and Conductivity Decisions ..............................................
Fracture Design ...........................................................................................
Fracture Length and Width - Modeling .................................................
Fracture Orientation and Formation Stresses .......................................
Fluid Loss .............................................................................................
Fracturing Design .................................................................................

12-21
12-22
12-22
12-22
12-22
12-23
12-24
12-24
12-24
12-24
12-24
12-24
12-25
12-25
12-25
12-26
12-27
12-28
12-28
12-28
12-28
12-29
12-29
12-29
12-3 1
12-35
12-37

12-38
12-43
12-43
12-43
12-43
12-44
12-44
12-44
12-44
12-44
12-45
12-45
13-1
13-1
13-2
13-3
13-15
13-15
13-16
13-17
13-20

Closure Stress .......................................................................................

Fracture Treatments ..............................................................................
Fracture Treatment Design ...................................................................
When To Fracture .................................................................................
Treatment Pressure Behavior ...............................................................

13-25
13-29
13-29
13-33
13-33

References ................................................................................................
13-34
Unstable Formations and Sand Control ............................................................... 14-1

Sand Cementation ..........................................................................................

14-1
Formation Characterization .....................................................................
14-2
Sand Movement Prediction ..................................................................... 14-4
Sand Control Considerations ................................................................
14-12
Sand Control .........................................................................................
14-13
Alternate Gravel Sizing Methods ........................................................... 14-20
Current Gravel Pack Design Methods and Problem Identification ........14-2 1
Mobility of Fines.................................................................................... 14-22
Sand Sorting Considerations .................................................................
14-23
Benefits of Larger Gravel ...................................................................... 14-24
Carrier Fluids ......................................................................................... 14-26
Equipment .............................................................................................
14-28
Packing Methods ...................................................................................
14-29
Fluid Loss Control .................................................................................
14-30
Alternate Path Gravel Packing ..............................................................
14-30
Pressure Drops Across Gravel Packs ...................................................
14-31
Example ................................................................................................
14-32
Pack and Frac Technology ....................................................................
14-32
Reservoir Lamination and Well Deviation .............................................
14-33
Other Unstable Formations ................................................................... 14-33
References Gravel Pack ..........................................................................
14-34
Workovers and Fluids ...............................................................................................
15-1
Well Control .............................................................................................
15-1
Example 15.I ..........................................................................................
15-2
Example 15.2 ..........................................................................................
15-3
Example 15.3 ..........................................................................................
15-3
Shut-In .....................................................................................................
15-5
(Re)Gaining Control ................................................................................
15-6
Example 15.4 ..........................................................................................
156
Pressure Effects ....................................................................................
15-11
Snubbing ...............................................................................................
15-14
Example 15.5 ........................................................................................
15-14
Completion/Workover Fluids ................................................................. 15-16
Example 15.6 ........................................................................................
15-18
Example 75.7 ........................................................................................
15-19
Example 15.8 ........................................................................................ 15-20
Example 15.9 ........................................................................................
15-20
Example I5.I0 ......................................................................................
15-22
Before the Job W C ................................................................................ 15-26
Fluid Filtration ...............................................................................................
15 27
Field Testing and Measurement of Clean ........................................... 15-32
Application ............................................................................................
.15-32
Kill String Completions .......................................................................... 15-33
Returning Wells to Operation ................................................................
15-33
Workover References ................................................................................
15-34

.viii .

References on Filtration .............................................................................

15-35
16-1
Completions Operations .................................................................................
16-2
Brines ............................................................................................................. 16-5
Stimulation ...................................................................................................... 16-5
Formation Damage .........................................................................................
16-6
Well Design ....................................................................................................
16-7
Completions Equipment .................................................................................
16-7
Subsurface Safety Valves ..............................................................................
16-8
Annular Pressure Buildup .............................................................................
16-10
References ................................................................................................
16-11
Water Production Control ........................................................................................ 17-1
Summary of Important Points ..................................................................17-1
Sources of Water .....................................................................................
17-1
Problem Definition - Reservoir ................................................................ 17-2
Problem Definition - Near Wellbore .........................................................
17-3
Coning .....................................................................................................
17-3
Water Block .............................................................................................
17-5
Problem Definition - Injection Well .......................................................... 17-6
Reservoir Description and Modeling Necessities ....................................
17-7
Treating Considerations ..........................................................................
17-7
..
Modification of Permeability ............................................................................
17-7
Deep Modification - Permeability Reduction ...........................................
17-7
Deep Modification - Increasing Permeability ...........................................
17-7
Shallow Modification - Permeability Reduction ........................................ 17-8
Shallow Modification - Increasing Permeability ....................................... 17-9
References ..................................................................................................
17-9
Wireline and Coiled Tubing Operations ................................................................ 18-1
Wireline Operations .................................................................................
18-1
Downhole Wireline Equipment ................................................................ 18-2
Pressure and Fluid Control ......................................................................
18-6
Special Services ......................................................................................
18-9
Tools for Downhole Measurements .........................................................
18-9
Coil Tubing Operations ................................................................................
18-9
Chain Injector ........................................................................................
1 8-10
Axial Load Capacity ...............................................................................
18-25
Depth Limitations ..........................................................................................
18-27
Buoyancy ......................................................................................................
18-28
Tapered Strings ............................................................................................
18-30
Buckling ........................................................................................................
18-31
Capacity and Displacement .......................................................................... 18-31
Fluid Unloading in Casing .............................................................................
18-40
Friction Pressure ..........................................................................................
18-42
Well Testing with Coiled Tubing ...................................................................
18-44
References ................................................................................................
18-44
Additional References on Coiled Tubing ...................................................
18-46
Workover Fishing .......................................................................................................
19-1
Location of Stuck Point ............................................................................
19-6

High Temperature, High Pressure Completions .................................................

References .Fishing ....................................................................................

References .Milling .....................................................................................
Plug and Abandonment Procedures .....................................................................
Legal Requirements .......................................................................................
Setting Cement Plugs .....................................................................................
Other Plugging Processes ..............................................................................
Milling a Packer .......................................................................................

19-8
19-8
20-1
20-2
20-2
20-6
20-7
20-7

References - Plug and Abandonment ..........................................................

Effects of Completion, Stimulation and Workover Activities on Surface Facility
21-1
Operations ..............................................................................................................
Stimulation Flowbacks ....................................................................................
Testing the Backflow ......................................................................................
Causes of Upsets ....................................................................................
Flowback Duration ........................................................................................
Treating the Returning Acid ..........................................................................
Treatment Choices .......................................................................................
Oil Foams .....................................................................................................

References

................................................................................................

-X-

21-7
21-7
21-7
21-12
21-13
21-13
21-14
21-14

Introduction: Basic Well Completion Concepts

Porosity

Porosity is the fraction of the total volume of the rock that is pore (non rock) space or void and not
made of solid pieces of the formation. It will be filled with a gas, water or hydrocarbon or two or more
at the same time. Porosity will range from a high of 40-50% in some marginally consolidated chalk formations to a low of near zero in some of the evaporites (anhydrite). The average porosity of producing
reservoirs ranges from about 5 1 5 % in limestones or dolomites, 10-25% in sandstones and over 30%
in many of the chalk formations. In most unconsolidated formation, porosity depends upon the grain
size distribution; not on the absolute size of the grain itself. Porosity can be in the order of 35-40% if
all grains are close to the same size, but in most cases where a wide range of grain sizes are available, the porosity will be between 15-25%. Severe cases of formations with mixtures of large and very
small grains may have porosities less than 15%.
Lower porosities, such as 10% or less, are usually the result of chemical modification of the pore
structure, i.e., recementation, precipitation of additional minerals, or leaching and reprecipitation. In
some cases, the very consolidated sandstones with overgrowth of quartz may have porosities down to
near zero.
Geologists further subdivide porosity into several descriptive classifications that help engineers
describe the flow of fluids through the formation and into the wellbore. The major classifications are
briefly described in the following paragraphs.

1. Matrix porosity or intergranular porosity the porosity between the grains of the formation.
2. Vug porosity - porosity in the solution chambers that may range from a tenth of a millimeter to
voids larger than a basketball.

3. Fracture porosity the void space created within the walls of an open natural fracture.

4. Micro porosity the voids between the clay platelets or particles. Although a large micro porosity

may exist, production of fluids from them is often difficult since the fluids are usually held by
strong cohesive forces.
The matrix porosity is referred to as the primary porosity and most other porosities are secondary.
Usually, the pore space described by natural fractures and vugs are produced or swept very early
(flush production) and their continuing use becomes as a conductive pathway to the wellbore. Long
term production rate estimates are usually based upon the reserves in the matrix except in very large
fields where solution porosity (vugs) is very extensive.
Porosity values derived from neutron or sonic logs are usually used alone with other log information
and well observations to establish whether a section of rock is pay. Although the use of porosity in
this manner is common, it can also be very misleading. Obviously, porosity is not a stand along value
for establishing the quality of pay. Shales, for example, have porosities of 30% or more but lack the
conductive pathways (permeability) to make them economic except where fractured gas-rich shales
exist in massive sections.
The location and type of porosity has a great affect on the performance of a well. Relying totally on a
log derived porosity, especially in a carbonate, may provide unexpected low production or may result
in missing productive intervals. The occurrence of lime muds, a low porosity deposit common within
limestones may isolate porosity and result in much lower effective porosities than reported with a log.
Fossils, porosity within grains, and isolated vugs encased by grain overgrowths may also result in high
porosity readings without adding to the porosity of the reservoir. These porosity problems are usually
only spotted with the aide of core examinations.

i-1

Lower porosity rocks (less than 10%) may be pay in a few instances if microfractures exist at reservoir
conditions. The open microfractures serve as drainage paths for fluid flow from very low porosity but
extensive parts of the rock.
Saturation

The fraction of pore space containing water is called the water saturation and usually denoted by an
Sw. The remaining fraction of the pore space that contains oil or gas is called hydrocarbon saturation
Sh. The simple balance sh = 1 - Sw accounts for all of the pore space within a rock. In almost
every porous formation, there is at least a small amount of water saturation. Usually when the sediments were laid down, the matrix materials were dispersed in water. As the hydrocarbon entered the
porous formation, water was displaced from many of the pores, although the displacement process is
not efficient enough to move all the water. This displacement process, whether it was oil displacing
water over geologic time, or water displacing oil during water drive or water flooding, results in a lower
saturation of the fluid being displaced. If a very large amount of the driving fluid is displaced, the quantity of the initial fluid reaches a point, usually a few percent of the pore space, where it cannot be
reduced further. This level of fluid is the irreducible saturation of that fluid. Therefore, an irreducible
water saturation, S,,i, is the saturation of water in the core that cannot be removed by migration of
hydrocarbon. This water or oil, Soil may be trapped in the small pores, held by high capillary attraction,
or bound to clays as a surface layer or in the clay lattice.
Permeability

Permeability, denoted by a lower case k,is a measure of the conductance of the formation to flow of a
fluid. The higher the permeability, the easier it is (takes less driving pressure) for a fluid to flow
through the rock matrix. The law was originally derived by a French engineer named dArcy to
account for the flow of water through sand filters. The original permeability concept used darcies as a
unit of measurement, but most productive formations will be between 0.001 md (1 md = 0.001 darcy)
and 1000 millidarcies (1 darcy). Permeability depends on the absolute grain size of the rock, how well
the sediments are sorted, presence of fractures, and how much chemical modification has occurred in
the matrix. Flowing and bound fluid properties also affect the permeability. Large-grained sediments
with a minimum of fine particles (large, open pores) usually have high permeabilities whereas very
fine-grained sediments with small pores have lower permeabilities. Porosity does not always relate
directly to permeability. Materials such as shales and some chalks may have very high porosities but
low permeability because of lack of effective connection of the pores.
Permeability to oil, water and gas may be different because of viscosity differences and other influences such as wetting and the issue of the thickness of the liquid coating on the pore wall. Oil wet formations are usually thought to be less permeable to the flow of water than water wet formations
because the molecular thickness of the oil coating is thicker than that of water. This leaves less pore
space for fluids flow. When more than one phase exists in the pore, relative permeability relationships
govern the flow.
Relative Permeability

The effects of relative permeability explain many of the problems involved in formation damage and
reduction of flow from a formation, either on initial production or after treating with a material which
severely oil wets the formation. As will be pointed out in the chapter on formation damage, problems
with relative permeability include a significant drop in permeability to the saturating fluid as trace
amounts of a second, immiscible phase are introduced in the flowing liquid. Reductions of up to 80%
of initial permeability are common when saturation of an immiscible phase is increased from zero to
approximately 20 or 25%. It is this significant reduction in permeability that explains much of the damage behind overtreatment with an oil-filming chemical, such as an oil-based drilling mud, or the use of
highly absorptive surfactants or solvents. The surface of the rock also plays an important part since
the charge of a surfactant controls the attraction to a particular formation face. It must be remembered
that severe wettability problems such as the absorption of cationic materials onto sandstones and the
absorption of anionic materials onto limestones can play a significant role in permeability reduction.

i-2

The reduction from this coating or wetting may be severe and can be long-lasting, depending on the
tenacity of the coating.
Matrix cleanup of this type of wetting is imperative to fully restore the flow capacity of the formation.
Cleanup of this type of damage must take into account both the stripping of the relative permeability
influencing layer and the type of rock surface to which it is adsorbed.
Natural Fractures

Natural fractures are breaks in the fabric of the rock caused by a wide variety of earth forces. These
natural fractures may have widths of a few thousandths of an inch to a tenth of an inch or more. Natural fractures generally have a common direction that corresponds to forces generated by a significant
geologic event in the area such as folding, faulting, or tectonic forces. Where solution etching or
cementation forces are active, the fractures may be widened into extensive vugs with permeabilities of
hundreds of darcies or filled completely with precipitated minerals. Stylolites or gouge filled fractures
are examples of these behaviors. Natural fractures influence flush production or high initial production
rate that diminishes quickly after bringing on a new well or the start of flow in a well that has been
shut-in. Although they serve as conductive pathways for oil or gas production, they also will transmit
water at a much faster rate than the formation matrix, leading to early breakthrough of water or other
type floods and sweep problems in reservoir engineering.
Reservoir Pressure

The pressure that the reservoir fluids exert on the well at the pay zone is the reservoir pressure. In single pay completions with little or no rat hole (extra hole below the pay), the reservoir pressure is the
bottom hole pressure, BHP. The initial reservoir pressure is the pressure at the time of discovery.
Flowing bottom hole pressure is pressure exerted as the result of a drawdown (differential pressure
produced by flowing the well). Shut-in pressure is the stable pressure reached after the well has been
shut in long enough to come to equilibrium. Shut-in pressures are often quoted as a function of time.
The initial pressure is usually a function of depth of burial but may be modified by other forces at the
time of burial or at a later time. Driving pressure may be supplied by a number of mechanisms
depending upon the characteristics of the oil and the surrounding geologic and physical forces. The
general types of reservoir drive forces (to the limit of general interest in well completions) are:
1. Solution gas drive - a volumetric displacement where all the driving energy or pressure is supplied by gas expansion as the pressure is reduced and the gas comes out of solution. In reservoirs above the bubble point, all the gas is dissolved in the oil and there is no free gas. In these
reservoirs, there may be a volume change of the oil as the pressure drops and gas breaks out of
solution. Reservoir pressure decreases with fluid withdrawals.

2. Gas Cap a volumetric displacement where the oil is below the bubble point, i.e., there is free

gas or gas saturation in the pores and there may be a gas cap. Reservoir pressure decreases
with fluid withdrawals.
3. Water drive -water influx into the reservoir from edge, bottom or water injection wells can provide very consistent drive pressure to a reservoir. Like the oil, the water moves through the most
permeable pathways of the formation towards the pressure drop produced by removal of fluids.
The water pushes part of the oil in front, entering some of the pores and displacing the oil. Oil
production continues long after the breakthrough of water at the producing well since the formation may contain a number of streaks that have permeability differences an order of magnitude
or more. Reservoir pressure may remain the same or drop with fluid withdrawals, depending
upon how fast the incoming water replaces the withdrawn fluids.
4. Reservoir compression through compaction in poorly consolidated, high porosity reservoirs is

also a method of supplying driving energy but it usually generates serious problems in the reservoir. In these reservoirs, which may often be initially over pressured, the reservoir fluids are a

i-3

overburden load supporting element. Withdrawal of the fluids requires the matrix of the formation
to support more of the load from the overlying sediments (overburden). In some poorly consolidated or weak formations, the matrix compresses under the load, leading to lower porosity and a
continued pressure on the remaining fluids. Although this is a definite form of pressure maintenance, when the porosity is decreased, the permeability also is reduced. Compaction of the pay
in massive sections may also lead to subsidence of several feet at the surface -- a critical problem for some offshore rigs and sea level land fields.
5. Pressure maintenance or sweep projects using water or gas are our methods of increasing
recovery. These processes come with many of the same advantages and limitations as their natural counterparts.

Pressures
To a workover engineer, pressure can be a powerful tool or a nightmare. The difference is in how pressure control is handled. The following "short list" of pressures and pressure related terms presents an
idea of what and how pressures are important to the workover.

1. Reservoir Pore Pressure The pressure of the reservoir fluids, often expressed as a gradient in

psilft. The initial reservoir pressure is the pressure at the time of discovery. Fluid withdrawals
from a reservoir are made by lowering the pressure in the wellbore. The flow of fluids toward the
low pressure creates zones of lower pressure or pressure gradients extending into the reservoir.
The reservoir pressure can only be measured at the wellbore in a new well or in a well that has
experienced complete buildup.
2. Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure -This pressure is measured at the productive zone during flow. A
value of flowing bottom hole pressure is usually reported with a flow rate or a choke setting. A

change in the flow rate will change the flowing bottom hole pressure.

3. Drawdown Drawdown is the pressure differential set by the difference of the reservoir pressure
and the flowing bottom hole pressure.

4. Flowing Tubing Pressure A surface measurement of the pressure in the tubing, prior to the

choke, at a particular flow rate. It is equal to the flowing bottom hole pressure minus the hydrostatic pressure exerted by the fluids in the tubing. Because of entrained gas production and gas
breakout as the well is produced, it is rarely possible on liquid/gas producers to accurately calculate the flowing bottom hole pressure from the flowing wellhead pressure. Only when the composition of the fluid in the tubing is known can the down hole pressure be calculated.

5. Shut-in Surface Pressure Any pressure measured at the surface immediately after a well is
shut-in will change as bottom hole pressure builds up toward reservoir pressure and the fluids in
the tubing come to an equilibrium. Surface measured shut-in pressures are useful in some buildup tests to assess the productivity of a well.

6. Productivity Index The productivity index is a measurement of well flow potential. It is a term

generated from a delivery plot of flow rate and pressure from a particular well. It is commonly
expressed as a potential flow rate per pressure drop such as barrels per day per psi. By multiplying the PI by the intended drawdown, a flow rate of the well can be predicted. The PI is established by test on the well. It changes with time.

7. Fracture Breakdown Pressure A measurement of what pressure is required to hydraulically

fracture the rock. The breakdown pressure is usually attained from drilling data, breakdown
tests, or fracture stimulations. It is usually expressed as a gradient of pressure per unit of formation depth such as psi/ft.

i-4

8. Fracture Extension Pressure -The pressure necessary to extend the fracture after initiation. Like
fracture breakdown pressure, it is relevant to a particular well or field.

9. Friction Pressure When fluids are flowed at high rates through a conduit, there is a resistance
to flow caused, at least partly, by friction of the fluids at the boundaries of the conduit and by turbulence (mixing) of the fluids. Whether the conduit is pipe or a fracture, friction represents a
back pressure. Friction is expressed as pressure at a rate for a unit length of a particular conduit.
10. Bubble Point Pressure - In a reservoir that contains an undersaturated oil, there will be no gas

cap. As the pressure is drawn down, the solution gas will break out of solution. Because of relative permeability and saturation concerns, the occurrence of reaching the bubble point usually
coincides with a drop in production.

Pressure Differential
Pressure differential is probably the most important pressure during drilling, completion, workover and
production. The differential pressure between the wellbore and the formation dictates which direction
fluids will move and at what rate they will move. Additional controls such as reservoir permeability and
native and injected fluid viscosity also have an affect, as does the presence of solids in the wellbore
fluid when the pressure differential is toward the formation.
In general, drilling pressure differential should be as low as possible to minimize formation damage
and the amount of fluid invasion from wellbore fluids. However, during any drilling, completion or workover operation, the pressure differential must be toward the wellbore (higher pressure in the wellbore
than in the reservoir) when well flow is not wanted. Maintaining pressure differential is the same as
maintaining well control. Certain conditions, such as intentional or accidental swabbing caused by
swab cups or large-diameter tools, can create low pressures at the bottomhole, even with a column of
high pressure fluid above the swab or tool. It is the rate of movement and the diameter difference
between the object in the hole and the inside of the hole itself that determine the swab or underbalance loads. Each step of a drilling, completion or workover operation, particularly when tools or equipment are removed from the hole, should be examined to determine if swab loads can unbalance the
pressure differential and swab fluids into the wellbore.
During production, pressure differential toward the wellbore is essential for fluid flow. Columns of
standing liquids, excessive backpressures or large amounts of solids in the fluids in the wellbore will
act as a check valve, severely limiting production flow into the well.
The study of pressure differential and pressure drop is commonly done using a nodal analysis program. These programs compute pressure drops and backpressures on a system, and help identify
those points that may be bottlenecks to good production practices. There are many instances of wells,
some even with large-diameter tubing where the tubing has been found to be a choke on the production from the well. Changing out the tubing to a larger size in many cases has doubled production from
a high capacity well.
Well Temperature
The reservoir at static conditions has a shut-in or reservoir temperature that is characteristic of the
depth times the geothermal gradient for that area. A 13,000 ft deep reservoir in one part of the world
may have a bottom hole temperature of 16OoF, while a similar depth reservoir in a hotter geothermal
area may be 360F.
As the well flows, the bottom hole temperature will drop depending on the type and amount of gas and
the pressure drop. The cooling is produced by the expansion of gas. Temperature reductions low
enough to freeze water may form ice or hydrates in some gas wells while wells with a smaller ratio of
gas to liquids will flow hot to surface.

i-5

Fluid Properties
The composition of the fluid in the formation, at various points in the tubing and at the surface have
major affects on the performance ofthe well and the selection of production equipment. The following
terms are required knowledge to describe the fluid and their changing nature.
1. Gas-oil-ratio, GOR, the amount of free gas associated with the oil production. The gas may ordi-

narily be in solution or free gas as in a reservoir with a gas cap. When the gas volume is
expressed as a function of the total liquids, the value is the gas-liquid-ratio, GLR. Wells with
GLRs above 8000 are considered gas wells, while those with a GOR less than 2000 are labeled
oil wells. The wells in between 2000 and 8000 are combination wells. The actual GOR value is
usually measured at the surface, its value downhole changes with pressure.

2. Water-oil-ratio, WOR, is the amount of water being produced in ratio to the oil production.
3. Bubble point refers to the pressure that a free gas phase will form in an undersaturated oil. The
significance is the addition of another phase that, most likely, will lower the relative permeability.
4. Dew point is the pressure and temperature at which the light hydrocarbon gases, Cs-C,,

begin to

condense into a liquid. The addition of another phase will lower relative permeability.

5. Cloud point is the temperature in an oil system where paraffin crystals appear
begins to solidify).

+ fraction

(cj8

6. Pour point is the temperature below which the oil will no longer pour.
High Temperature and High Pressure Wells

Wells with pressures over 0.6 psi/ft and temperatures over 300F are often referred to as HTHP wells
or high temperature, high pressure wells. These wells account for less than 1% of the total wells
drilled, but may cost 5% or more of the total expenditures for drilling and completions. The risk, reward
and cost can all be very great in these types of wells. Very special workover and completion operations are necessary to adequately complete and produce these wells.

i-6

Introductions Geology
The geologic understanding of the pay and the surrounding formations plays an important part in the
design of well completions and stimulations. The brief introduction given here will only give a glimpse
of the subject matter in the field. This treatment of geology is very simplistic; reference articles and
books are available for every segment.
The type of formation, composition, strength, logging basics, leakoff sites and other parameters may
be available from a detailed geologic investigation. This information is useful for pay zone identification, fluid and additive selection, longevity of fluid contact, and selecting casing points.
There are several major classifications of rocks of interest to the petroleum industry: sandstones, carbonates (limestone and dolomite) evaporites, and shales are only the major groups. Several others,
such as mudstones, siltstones and washes, are subdivisions of the major classifications.
Sandstones are predominately silicon dioxide and may have various amounts of clay, pyrite, calcite,
dolomite or other materials in concentrations from less than 1 % to over 50%. Sandstone formations
are generally noted for being a collection of grains. The grain size may range from very small, silt
sized particles (5 microns) to pea size or larger. The grains fit together to form a matrix that has (hopefully) some void space between the particles in which oil or other fluids may accumulate. The grains
are usually held together by a cement that may be clay, silica, calcite, dolomite, or pyrite. Some
cementation of the grains is critical for formation strength; however, excess cementation reduces
porosity and permeability.
Sands are deposited in a variety of depositional environments that determine the initial sedimentkock
properties. The depositional environment is simply what type of surroundings and forces shaped the
deposits. In the following descriptions of depositional environment, the energy level is labeled as
either high or low depending upon the level of force that accompanied the deposition of the sediments.
High energy deposits are those with sufficient wind or current to move large pieces of debris while low
energy is sufficient to move only the smaller particles. The importance of energy is described later.
Common depositional environments are:

1. Deltas These mouth of river deposits provide some of the larger sandstone deposits. Because

of the enormous amount of natural organic material swept down the river systems, the deltas are
also rich in hydrocarbons. Quality of the reservoir rock deposits may vary widely because of the
wide variations in the energy level of the systems.

2. Lagoonal deposits - May be regionally extensive along the shores of ancient seas. Lagoonal
deposits are low energy deposits that are hydrocarbon rich. Permeability may vary with the
energy and amount of silt.

3. Stream beds - A moderate to low energy deposit with some streaks of high energy along the fast
flowing parts of the streams. Stream beds are known to wander extensively and chasing these
deposits with wells requires very good geologic interpretation, plus a lot of luck. The deposit volumes are also limited and frequently deplete quickly.

4. Deep marine chalks These are often the most massive deposits available, built up at the bot-

tom of ancient seas by the death of millions of generations of plankton-sized, calcium fixing
organisms. They can be very consistent, thick deposits. Natural fracturing is common.

5. Reefs - These formations were built in the same manner as the reefs of today, by animals that

take calcium from the sea water and secrete hard structures. Because of the cavities remaining
from the once living organisms, reefs that have not undergone extensive chemical modification
are among the most permeable of the carbonate deposits.

ii- 1

6. Dunes - The effects of desert winds on the sands have a shaping effect that can be seen in the

arrangement of the grains. These deposits may be massive but are usually lower energy. Permeability may vary considerably from top to bottom.

7. Alluvial fan - Zones of heavy water run-off such as from mountains are extremely high energy
runoffs. Common constituents of these formations may range from pebbles to boulders and
cementation may be very weak. Formations such as the granite washes are in this classification.
8. Flood plains - Occur along lower energy rivers and form during flood stages when the rivers
overflow the banks and spill into adjacent low areas. Flood plain deposits are mostly silt and
mud.

The level of energy with each type of deposit can be visualized by their modern depositional counterparts. The importance of energy is in the sorting of the grains and the average size of the grains. As
seen in the description of permeability in the preceding section, a rock with larger grains and the
absence of very small grains leads to high permeability. When small grains are present, the permeability is much lower. When there is a mixture of the very large and very small grains, such as in some
alluvial fans, the permeability can be very low. The extent of grain differences in a formation is termed
the sorting, with well sorted formations having similar sized grains and poorly sorted formations
showing a very wide size range.
The events that happen after the deposit is laid down are also factors in well completions and may
have a devastating effect on reservoir engineering. Some of these forces are active for a short period
in geologic time such as faulting and salt domes, and others like salt flows and subsidence, are active
during the productive life of the well. The faulting, folding and salt movement make some reservoirs
difficult to follow. Continuous forces are often responsible for formation creep in open holes, spalling,
and casing sticking and collapse problems. Although these geologic movement factors cannot be easily controlled, the well completion operations can be modified to account for many of them, if the problems are correctly identified early in the project life.
Chemical modifications also influence the reservoirs, though much less drastically than the uplift
forces of a salt dome, for example. Most carbonates (not including the reefs) are laid down by accumulation of calcium carbonate particles. Limestone may recrystallize or convert to dolomite by the
addition of magnesium. Because the limestone is soluble in ground water and very stable (resistant to
collapse), the limestones are often accompanied by locally extensive vugs or caverns which form from
ground water flow. Recrystallization or modification by the water as is flows through the rock may also
lead to a decrease in porosity in some cases.
When dolomite forms, a chemical process involving the substitution of magnesium for part of a calcium in the carbonate structure generally shrinks the formation very slightly, resulting in lower
microporosity but slightly higher porosity through the vugs or the natural fracture systems. Other types
of dolomitization are possible. The carbonates are marked by a tendency towards natural fractures,
especially dolomite. The chalk formations may be almost pure calcium carbonate, are reasonably soft
(low compressive strength) and may have very high porosities on the order of 35-45%, but relatively
low permeabilities of less than, typically, 5 md.
The third formation of interest is shale. These formations are laid down from very small particles (poor
sorting) that are mixed with organic materials. The organic material is often in layers, pools, or ebbs.
The shales may accumulate in deep marine environments or in lagoonal areas of very low energy
resulting in almost no large particles being moved. The shales are marked by high initial porosity and
extremely low permeability. Shales often serve as a seal for permeable formations. The shales are
also extremely important, since they are the source for the oil that has been generated in many major
plays. Oil leaves the shale over geologic time and migrates into the traps formed in sandstones, limestones and other permeable rocks.

ii-2

The evaporites are deposits that are formed by the evaporation of water. Deposits such as anhydrite
are usually accumulations of dried inland seas and serve as extensive local geologic markers and
sealing formations. They are extremely dense with almost no porosity or permeability.
When a deposit of oil and gas is found, it usually has its origins elsewhere and been trapped in a permeable rock by some sort of a permeability limiting trap. The trapping mechanism is too extensive to
be covered in a short explanation on geology, but the major traps are outlined in the following paragraphs.
1. Trapping by a sealing formation is common and accounts for some major fields. These occur-

rences, called unconformity traps, are where erosion has produced a rough topography with
peaks and valleys. Like the rolling terrain of the surface, most formations are rarely flat; they
have high and low points and may have a general rise in a direction. If an extensive sealing formation is laid down in top of the sandstone (or other pay), and the sand is exposed to migrating
oil from a lower source over geologic time, the oil will accumulate in the higher points of the pay
and trend uphill toward the point where the hill drops off or another sealing event stops the
migration. Tracking these deposits is best accomplished with as complete a structural map as
can be constructed. These maps of the formations highs and lows compiled from seismic and
drilling data indicate the better places to drill a well -- small wonder that the maps are among the
most closely guarded secrets of an oil company.
2. Faulting is an event that shifts a large block of the formation to a higher or lower position. The

misalignment of the zones often provides contact with sealing formations and traps the hydrocarbon. There are several types of faulting depending on the action and movement of the rock. In
areas of extensive tectonic plate movements, faulting may be extensive.
3. Folding is an uplift or a drop of part of the formation where the breaks associated with faults do
not occur. The formation maintains contact with itself, although it may form waves or even be
turned completely over by the event. Complete turnover is seen in the geologic overthrust belts
and accounts for the same formation being drilled through three times in one well, with the middle contact upside down. Vertical wells directly on the fold will penetrate the formation horizontal
to the original plane of bedding. Although these wells offer increased local reservoir quantity
when they are productive, the problems with directional permeability and sweep in a flood are
often substantial.
4. Salt domes cause uplift of the formation and result in numerous small or large fields around their

periphery. Faulting is often very wide spread. Brines in these areas are frequently saturated or
oversaturated and evaporated salt formations, stringers and salt-fill in vugs are common.
Because of the uplift of some formations from deeper burial, the productive formations may be
over pressured.
5. Stratigraphic traps (permeability pinchouts) are a change in the permeability of a continuous formation that stops the movement of oil. These deposits are very difficult to observe with conventional seismic methods. This effect, combined with a sealing surface to prevent upward
movement of fluid forms numerous small reservoirs and a few massive ones. Permeability pinchout may also explain poor well performance near the seal. Laminated beds with permeable
sands sandwiched between thin shales are a version of the pinchout or stratigraphic trap. These
deposits may be locally prolific but limited in reservoir and discontinuous. Linking the sands is
the key to production.
The age of a formation is dated with the aid of fossils which are laid down with the matrix. The age of
a formation is important to know if the formation has a possibility of containing significant amounts of
hydrocarbon. In most cases, very old formations such as the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian contain
very little possibility for hydrocarbons unless an uplift of the structure has made the formation higher
than an oil-generating shale, and oil has migrated into a trap inside the formation.

ii-3

Formation Sequences and Layering

Formations are almost never homogeneous from top to bottom. There is a considerable amount of
variation, even in a single formation, between permeability and porosity when viewed from the top of
the zone to the bottom. When formations are interbedded with shale streaks, they are referred to as a
layered formation. The shale streaks, often laid down by cyclic low energy environments, may act as
seals and barriers and form hundreds or thousands of small isolated reservoirs within a pay section.
Many times, the layering is too thin to be spotted by resistivity or gamma ray logs. When a formation is
known to be layered, the completion requirements change. Perforating requirements may rise from
four shots per foot to 16 shots per foot, and in many cases, small fracturing treatments may prove very
beneficial even in higher permeability formations.

ii-4

Well Planning
Before initial operations are started on any well, a plan should be constructed that will take the well
from initial drilling to plug and abandonment. There are a series of steps and operations that go into
completing a successful well. Many of these are interconnected, and the expense of a well in todays
market requires that consideration be given to efficient economical planning.
The method of planning is the same, regardless of the use of the well. Planning starts with cooperation and information exchange between explorers, drillers, completions and operations engineers and
foremen, partner companies, service companies, equipment providers, and government regulatory
officials. The information gathered in this step often prevents expensive misunderstandings that would
occur during the drilling or completion of the well or disastrous environmental problems that could
result from improperly executed operations. Each of the functional operations in well service involves
specialists. Too often these specialists do not have a good knowledge of the operation of other parts
of the industry, and the effects that their specific actions will have on the other operations of a well.
One of the first basic needs in todays environment is to prevent pollution. There is a need to isolate all
usable waters from contamination during the drilling, completion, or producing process. This step
requires careful design and a concerted effort on the application side. The requirements include casing that will withstand pressure and the corrosive atmospheres that will be experienced during the life
of a well, even if a sweet well turns slightly sour. It also requires consideration of cement placement
and elimination of any possible means of migration of fluids through or around the borehole.
The expected use of a well, whether it be observation, production, injection, or a multiple purpose
well, will influence where the well is placed, how large the casing is, and what corrosive service ratings will be required. It should be remembered that many wells serve more than one purpose during
their lives.
The reservoir conditions will obviously affect the completions. The factors that are most known in this
area are temperature and pressure. However, fluids, viscosity, corrosiveness of the fluids, and even
the rate of fluid production become very important. Factors which are not always considered include
the tendency for formation of scales, emulsions, paraffins, and asphaltenes. It is very possible by
modification of the tubing string or the incorporation of special coatings to almost completely prevent
many scale problems.
The rate of fluid production is the main factor in selection of the casing size. Expectations of a very
high rate well cannot be met with small casing. Problems such as this are often in direct contrast to
efforts to reduce well costs by using a small casing string or a small tubing string. Although initial savings in these areas can easily be made, the long-term benefits of the well weigh in heavily for larger
tubulars. There are also alternatives to conventional tubing and casing strings such as monobore
completions, velocity strings, tailpipe extensions, and the use of coiled tubing for rapidly run and
retrieved tubing strings.
The amount of service needed during the life of a well certainly has an influence on the topside connections and the location of the wellhead itself. For sweet gas wells with very low liquid production,
remote wellheads or subsea wellheads in offshore fields make very good sense. These wells would
only be good where well intervention was at a minimum.
Perhaps one of the most difficult parts to effectively plan are multiple layered reservoirs. In this problem area, there is a need to process all of the reservoirs without permitting crossflow from one zone to
another. Obviously, individual wells could be used to isolate each zone. However, the expense of drilling and completion are usually too high to make this a viable alternative, except in the highest rate
producing areas. Other methods of effectively producing multiple reservoirs or layered reservoirs
include a variety of techniques, such as tubing selectives, multiple completions, and sequenced pro-

iii-1

duction of reservoirs. Commingling of zones should be done when permitted by pressures and reactants that may form by mixing waters or oils of various zones.
Physical well design parameters should have been dictated by the expected producing behavior of the
well. Sizes of tubing and casing are set before the drilling bit selection process. During the tubular
design, the use of pup joints (short joints of casing to improve depth control of perforating and other
operations), nipple locations, and the use of special equipment in a string, such as subsurface safety
valves that require larger casing, are needed early in the design phase of the well. In most cases, it is
advisable to minimize the number of restrictions in a producing string to make sure needed tools can
pass through the string and to prevent deposits that are often caused downstream of a flow restriction.
Cementing operations should be carefully planned and applied to eliminate channeling of fluid. Too
often it is assumed that the primary cement job will be a failure before the job is even pumped. This
type of thinking leads to a haphazard placement of cement and a self-fulfilling prophecy requiring
expensive squeeze cementing. It has been shown in a number of tests that proper quality control and
attention to detail can result in effective primary cementing jobs.
Perforating planning is an area that could definitely use attention during both planning and application.
A variety of processes and tools are available from underbalanced to extreme overbalanced perforating and from wireline perforating to tubing conveyed perforating. Perforating expense can run from a
few thousand dollars to over one hundred thousand dollars, depending on the needs of the well and
the care with which it is designed. Expensive techniques are by no means always needed.
The type of artificial lift that will be used on the well should have been decided long before the well
was drilled. A number of artificial lift methods are available: gas lift, beam lift, plunger, jet lift, progressive cavity pumps, electric submersible, and natural flow. Of these lift methods, beam lift, gas lift, and
electric submersible pumps probably make up at least 98% of the artificial lift cases. Many wells that
are on natural flow early in their life have to be artificially lifted as pressures decline or as fluid volumes increase to the point where gas drive and natural gas lift are no longer sufficient. The ability to
change lift methods as fluid volumes increase or decrease is required for well operation optimization.
If the casing and packer are designed with a conversion in mind, the switch of lift systems is easy.
Some formations have special needs, such as sand control. When the strength of the formation is not
adequate to prevent sand grains from being dislodged by the drag forces encountered in production,
then special completion techniques are needed to prevent the sand from entering the wellbore. A
number of techniques have been tried, with resin consolidation of the sand and gravel packing being
the primary control mechanisms. The real concern in most sand control jobs is not what type of control, but whether sand control is needed and when it is needed. The factors that cause sand movement change during the lift of the well. Some wells that will not experience sand production until after
water breakthrough are gravel packed from initial completion. This is a large initial expense that can,
in some cases, be delayed.
Produced fluids including oil, gas, water and returning injected fluids are all reactable fluids. In addition, the well is a reactor when these fluids are moved through the well path. Conditions within this
reactor include temperature, pressure, pressure drop and other factors such as metallurgy and
clearances within the structure of the well. When the well flow path from formation to tank battery is
correctly designed for the flow of a particular fluid, the detrimental reactions are very few. But when
the well design is not suited to the particular fluids that must be produced, a problem well is often
created. Produced fluids are a reactant-rich %oup composed of natural surfactants in both the oil and
the water, free and dissolved salts, hydrocarbons with carbon chain links from C, to Cso, dissolved
and free mineral and hydrocarbon gases, bacteria, micelles, and over 20 possible combinations of
emulsions, foams, froths, and dispersions controlled and stabilized by such things as pH, viscosity,
internal phase concentration, and surface energy. When an upset occurs, the panic that ensues usually requires a quick fix. When the tank battery goes down because of a tank of bad oil (oil with a
higher than allowable water content), chemical treating is usually required as an emergency procedure to reduce the water content and return the well to production. The total chemical approach may
be short-sighted in some instances, particularly when production upset symptoms are treated in a

iii-2

cyclic manner. The best approach often requires an understanding of the individual reactants and their
relationship to both each other and their flow path environment. Often problem wells will yield
improvements only when physical changes are made in the well design. Numerous instances are
available that show chronic production upset problems being eliminated when physical changes were
made to the well architecture.
An understanding of production chemistry is a critical factor in designing the downhole and surface
equipment that makes up the wells system. The approaches that must be used are much the same as
initial design; however, the knowledge that liquid and gas volumes, relative amounts and pressure will
change over the life of a project. Thus, some flexibility must be built in to achieve a low maintenance
well system.
In general, several steps are followed when evaluating and/or designing a well system.
1. Most emulsions, including emulsions, sludges, froths, foams and dispersions, are most trouble-

some because of energy input and a stabilizing mechanism. By eliminating one or both of these
two factors, a significant decrease can be attained in problems with phase separation. The lift
system and pressure drops within the flowing system are the chief inputs of energy into an emulsion.
2. Upsets following acidizing or any type of chemical treating may be severe and are generally

based either on a solid material added with the chemical injection or by a variance in pH which
affects the behavior of natural surfactants. Tracking and controlling pH can often be a significant
factor in eliminating problems with upsets.
3. Production of solids from a well creates problems with emulsion stabilization, solids abrasion
and all types of fluid separation. Where possible, flow of solids should be identified and the
source minimized.

The lift system must be designed for the expected rate after a stimulation and must take into account the
recovery of the stimulation load fluid plus the method with which it commonly flows back. The most severe
problems in these areas generally include hydraulic fracturing and acidizing. Once an acid job has begun
to flow back, the pH may drop, significantly affecting the amount of corrosion during the load fluid recovery
stage. Jobs involving proppantfracturing often give problems because of proppant flowback in the produced
fluids during the initial stage of fluid flow.
In old wells and in marginal wells there is probably no stronger need than that of consideration of produced water control. Water comes in as a response to low pressure caused by hydrocarbon production. There may be many scenarios of water production. In some cases water drives the hydrocarbons
toward the wellbore. If you shutoff the water, you will reduce the hydrocarbon production volume. In
other cases leaks through bad cement, corroded casing, or through fractures can flood the well with
extraneous water. In these cases a water control treatment is often useful. Where bottom water drive
is severe, horizontal wells have often been used to successfully produce hydrocarbon without severe
water production problems. Each of these possibilities can be addressed in the initial well plan.
i

Control of corrosion is needed throughout the life of the wells. In many applications the well will have
a very low corrosivity when first drilled, but the corrosion rate will go up significantly during the life of a
well. In many wells, the original casing lasts 20 or more years before leaks are detected. Repair may
bring temporary relief, but leaks may often return within a few months. Special inhibitor programs are
needed as well conditions change.
Formation damage has been mentioned in earlier paragraphs, and it is well to remember that formation damage may recur during the life of the well. The most prevalent times for formation damage
occurrence are during workovers and when pressure declines or water from a floodfront causes precipitation of either organic or inorganic components in the formation or in the tubing string. Modeling
can often show a trend of formation damage and its effects, but the actual occurrence of formation

iii-3

damage can probably not be adequately predicted by any model without very exacting knowledge of
well behavior.
The occurrence of formation damage or drilling of a formation that is lower permeability than expected
may require stimulations. Stimulations, including fracturing, acidizing, heat, and solvents, can be
applied on almost any well provided that the support equipment and the tubulars will allow the techniques to be implemented. If formation damage or stimulation need can be adequately forecasted
early in the life of the well then cost reduction is often possible.
For projects where enhanced recovery is envisioned, well placement and spacing become critical. In
these applications the use of horizontal wells, deviated wells, and vertical wells are necessary to adequately process and sweep the reservoir. It is unfortunate that we know enough about reservoir to
adequately place wells only when the reservoir is nearing depletion. With new techniques however,
such as well-to-well seismic and 3D seismic, improved mapping of the reservoir if possible. This type
of investigation may also yield additional pay zones and how those pay zones can be accessed.
Every well that is ever drilled will require plug and abandonment. The techniques for plugging abandonment and the rules are many and varied. The underlying objective however is very plain. Wells
should be plugged in a manner in which the fluids that are in the reservoirs will stay isolated. This
need for isolation should be an overriding concern in any completion planning and must be accounted
for when processes such as fracturing or well placement are considered.

iii-4

Chapter I :

Drilling the Pay, Selecting the Interval and

the Initial Design

The completion begins when the drill bit first penetrates the pay. Drilling the pay zone is one of the
most important parts of the drilling procedure, thus drilling mud that is adequate for drilling the rest of
the well may not be acceptable in the pay. Whereas formation damage created by the mud is acceptable in a nonproductive interval, it cannot be tolerated in the pay zone. What is needed is a mud that
can control leakoff without creating permanent damage. The mud may require special treatment and
occasionally, a changeout of the mud to a nondamaging fluid. There are several goals in drilling
besides well control that are of interest to the completions engineer.

1. Drill a usable hole A hole through the pay that will not accept the design size of casing limits the

possibilities of the well and may impair the productivity.

2. Minimize formation permeability damage - High drilling mud overbalance pressure, uncontrolled
particle size, mud filtrate that swells clays and poor leakoff control may mask the response of a
productive formation to a drill stem test (DST) and may lead to bypassing a producing zone.
3. Control washouts - Hole stability problems may cause hole enlargements that make perforation
and formation breakdown much more difficult.
From a drillers viewpoint, there are five main functions of a drilling mud: pressure control, bit lubrication, shale stability, fluid loss control and cuttings retrieval. The most important aspects of a drilling
mud from a formation damage standpoint are to prevent loss of the drilling mud filtrate and to make
sure that the filtrate that is lost will not react with the formation to reduce permeability. Fluid reactivity
is usually controlled by using potassium chloride or other salts to stabilize the clay in the formation.2
Potassium chloride may not always control clay reactions or may require as much as 4% or more salt
where smectite clay is present in the larger pore passages. Fluid loss control is accomplished by rapidly sealing off the permeable sections of the formation^.^^^ The mud accomplishes this fluid loss control by creating an almost impermeable mud cake of particles on the surface of the formation where
leakoff occurs. The mud cake is produced by simple dehydration; as the liquid penetrates into the formation (the mud filtrite), the solid particles are stranded on the surface of the formation. In a properly
formulated mud, there are a wide range of particle sizes that, on dehydration, fit together into a tightly
compacted, very low permeability seal. By carefully controlling the size range of particles and minimizing the clay size particles that could invade the pores of the formation, invasion damage from particles
can be stopped. 4-7 In some drilling and workover fluids, fine particles and at least parts of the solids in
the fluids will be designed to be acid soluble.8
The time required to form the mud cake will depend upon the mud characteristics, the permeability
and the pressure differential, (Must be toward the formation for well control!) A higher permeability formation will generate a mud cake very rapidly than a low permeability formation since the rate of initial
fluid loss (spurt) is higher. After the mud cake is formed, further liquid losses depend on the permeability of the cake. Formation of a cake does not insure that leakoff stops.
In cases where the formation matrix permeability is between approximately 0.5 md and 100 md and
the pressure differential toward the formation is small (APc1 00 psi), the filtrate of even a damaging
mud will not likely extend into the formation beyond a depth of a few inches provided that the filter
cake is successful in controlling leakoff. To build a successful mud cake, there must be leakoff. If the
permeability is very low (e.g., kc0.05 md), the filter cake may be only poorly formed and fluid loss
could be much higher than expected. This is especially true when the pay is an upper formation in a
deep well where a high density mud is used and the formation is exposed to the mud for a long period
of time. Fortunately, most very low permeability formations require fracture stimulation, so the zone of
damage is easily bypassed. The occurrence of the damage is important, however, since a productive
interval might be missed on a test of an unstimulated well. The higher permeability formations pose
special problems if the mud cake cannot be formed quickly. Since every trip out of the hole scrapes off

1-1

much of the protective mud cake, the cake must reform easily to prevent the loss of large volumes of
mud filtrate into the formation. Tell-tail identifiers of a permeable formation are deflections on the SP
log, bit drag and where the caliper log shows a narrow spot of slightly less than the bit diameter. This
sticking point should not be confused with borehole deformation; a plastic flow of the rock in response
to bore hole deformation, active faulting, folding, salt domes, etc.l5
The depth of damage created by the filtrate of the mud is directly related to the amount of driving pressure that the mud exerts on the formation. Even with a high quality mud, damage can be very deep if
there is high mud overpressure. When high pressure zones elsewhere in the hole require the use of
high pressure on the mud system, lower pressure zones are forced to take fluid by the pressure differential. This situation becomes critical when a zone that may be pay is broken down and fractured with
the mud. Several hundred barrels of mud can be lost when the well is fractured. Some wells damaged
in this way never produce as expected. The only safe way to prevent this type of fluid loss from occurring is to case through the zones requiring high mud weights before the pay zones are drilled. Improving the filter cake and making the mud filtrate more compatible with the formation is one of the best
methods of controlling formation damage. The use of inhibited filtrate prepared with potassium chloride (such as 2% KCI) will often minimize the formation damage in pays with even water sensitive
sandstones.
In formations that are sensitive to fluid, the total time that the sensitive zone is exposed to mud may
be critical. Once a section of the well that is known to be sensitive is penetrated, operations should
continue as quickly as possible until casing can be cemented over the zone. This treatment is usually
reserved for sections of caving shale or other unstable formation; however, it may also be used very
successfully in drilling pay zones that are water sensitive. If loss of permeability is plotted against
accumulative fluid loss from the mud, permeability damage increases very steadily as total fluid loss
increases, almost regardless of the type of fluid. This emphasizes the importance of maintaining a
high quality mud and lowering the exposure of the formation to fluid loss.
Most of the solids and cuttings from the mud are halted at the formation face and very little penetration
occurs unless a poorly designed mud with a large amount of clay or silt sizes particles are used in a
formation with large pore throats. The damage from these solids is most apparent in the form of formation face plugging. Movement of the solids into the formation is dependent on the size of the pores,
particle size and quantity of the finest solids in the mud. Although some tests have shown several centimeter penetration of fine mud particles into high permeability ~ a n d s t o n ea, ~properly conditioned
mud will probably not invade the formation.
If the formation has rubble zones (very poorly sorted grains with sizes that may range from fines to
small boulders), very permeable porous sections, fractures or vugs, then severe whole mud penetration may occur and produce lasting formation damage. It is very advantageous to design the mud or
completion fluid to bridge off on the face of the formation to prevent the possibility of particle invasion.

When the mud or kill fluid cannot be circulated, the formation has a lost circulation zone that has very
high permeability or cannot support the weight of the mud column without fracturing. For these problem cases, special pills of LCM, lost circulation material, are often run to plug off the high perm
zonesg Where the formation will not support the mud column, a cement sheath is often tried to reinforce the zone. After setting a cement plug, the hole is redrilled. The cement invades fractures and
vugs, adding strength and controlling leakoff. One problem with lost circulation material (LCMs) cases
is that drillers use a variety of LCMs, such as paper, sawdust, leather, grain, etc., that are very effective in preventing leakoff but cannot be removed if the zone is a pay zone. Any LCM used in a potential pay must be easily removable.
The decision on whether a mud system should be changed before the pay is drilled depends upon the
sensitivity of the pay to the mud filtrate. If the formation contains swellable clays such as smectite, a
filtrite sensitivity test on core from an offset well will tell whether the formation is damaged by introduction of the mud filtrate. Where core is not available, a mud with a low damage potential (potassium
chloride) should be considered. Smectite clay in the pore throats is usually reactive to fresh fluids, up
to 5% or more KCI is sometimes needed to prevent clay problems in formations that have 3 to 8%
smectite. In gas zones, the use of most oil-based muds should be avoided unless the mud has been
proven to be of a nondamaging nature in the zone of interest. In oil or gas zones that are to be frac-

1-2

tured, less emphasis is placed on the mud damage at the wellbore since a fracture will extend beyond
the damage.
When natural fractures or vugs are present in the pay, whole mud can be lost. In these situations, it is
often necessary to set a casing string above the pay and drill the formation without returns or use a
fluid loss control additive capable of sealing fractures at the wellbore. Other methods, such as drilling
the well while flowing and diverting the produced fluids, have also been considered but are dangerous
in high pressure formations.
Because of damage by both incompatible filtrate and the migration of very small particles in the mud,
the completion zone in many wells has been drilled with completion fluid. This practice eliminates
much of the damage from mud and mud filtrate. The basic problem with the process is in completely
cleaning the hole and pipe of residuals from the mud so that the left-over mud and cuttings do not contaminate the completion fluid. Fluid loss from solids free systems may be very high, especially in high
permeability formations.
In very sensitive pay zones, the wells are often drilled with mud to the top of the pay and the pay itself
is drilled with air, mist or foam to reduce the amount of water in contact with pay. Another method of
reducing formation damage is to drill the pay with reverse circulation. This approach has been used in
sensitive formations to limit the contamination of the mud by drill cuttings. Regardless of the formation
sensitivity, well control must always be the Number 1 priority.
The importance of drilling a usable hole through the pay and its importance on running and cementing
pipe cannot be overstated. Failure to get a casing string or a liner to bottom can be very costly in
terms of cost of an additional string or liner and the reduction of working space where pumps and
other equipment need to be set. Simply drilling a hole with a certain diameter drill bit through a formation does not lead to a hole that will accept a string of pipe of an outside diameter just smaller than the
drill
In most instances where casing cannot be run in a freshly-drilled hole, the problem is that
a usable hole has not been drilled, i.e., the drift diameter of the hole is not equal to the bit diameter.
This problem is shown schematically in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. Figure 1.1 illustrates problems with hard
ledges or changes in formation, while Figure 1.2 shows an extreme case of bit wobble. The spiral hole
illustrated in Figure 1.2 was caused by an under-stabilized bit creating a hole too small to run the
planned casing. Normally, casing strings are run with 1-112 to 2 in. minimum clearance between the
hole diameter and the outside diameter of the pipe. In a straight hole, this is adequate clearance, but
in a hole with an incorrect BHA (bottomhole assembly of drilling bit, collars, and stabilizers), problems
will develop during running of the pipe. Drilling slick (drill collars in the BHA without stabilizers) usually leads to a hole with a usable diameter significantly less than the diameter of the drill bit. Estimation of this usable hole or drift diameter is:2

(after Woods, from Adams)

Figure 1.1:

Abrupt change in hole angle caused by drilling with an

unstabilized bit through hard ledges.

Drift diameter

Bit OD + Collar OD
2

1-3

Rm mvded by lap d bit

(after Wilson, from Adams)

Figure 1.2:

A spiral hole caused by an unstabilized bit.

The formula points out that the usable diameter of the hole may be smaller than the bit. If the hole has
been drilled with the intention of running a liner, the problem may be even more pronounced. Liners
are usually characterized by close tolerances between the pipe and the hole, thus it is essential that
good hole diameter stability be maintained.
The type of drilling mud may also make a difference in getting pipe to the bottom. Differential sticking
is caused by a pressure differential into a permeable zone that holds the pipe (or logging tool) against
the wall and buries the lower side of the pipe in the mud cake.14 Sticking is increased by thick mud
cakes because of increased contact area, Figure 1.3. An efficient mud forms a thin, slick mud cake
with very low permeability. A thin mudcake keeps the pipe from becoming deeply embedded, resulting
in less torque and drag.14 The goal is a high colloidal clay-to-silt (or cuttings) ratio that produces a
slick, thin cake.

Figure 1.3:

Differential sticking caused by thick, spongy

mudcake. The pipe is held against the mudcake
by pressure differential.

1-4

Diagnostics of stuck casing are often made after examining the drilling record and trying different
types of pipe movement and circulation. A simple, stuck pipe diagnostic routine is shown schematically in Figure 1.4.14

(Adarns)

Figure 1.4:

Top Left: Differential sticking-pipe held on wall by inward driving pressure. Pipe
cannot move, but circulation is possible.
Lower Left Bridging from formation debris, cuttings or formation movement.
Pipe movement usually not possible. No circulation.
Right: A key seat through a dog leg. Pipe can be rotated and either pushed down
or pulled up until a collar is reached. Circulation is possible.

Calculating the true vertical depth, TVD, from the measured vertical depth, MD, can be accomplished
for consistent deviated wells from simple trigonometry or from tables. When wells use long turn radii,
other corrections may be needed.
During drilling of wildcats or field development wells in sparsely drilled areas, mud density is handled
as a function of well control, with pore pressures estimated from other data. In this type of environment, high mud overbalance conditions may occur, especially in deep formations. Although fracturing
is the most obvious effect of high mud weights, excess formation permeability damage may also
occur. In a study of factors influencing stimulation rates, Paccaloni, et al.,16 reports that in formations
greater than 100 md, 90% of DST's were dry or doubtful when an overbalance of over 1100 psi was
used during drilling. Excessive mud overbalances should be avoided in pay zones.

1-5

Coiled Tubing Drilling

In addition to jointed pipe drilling, coiled tubing (see Chapter 18 for Coiled Tubing Equipment and
Techniques) can also be used for drilling and milling in some applications. Coiled tubing offers several
advantages and a few current disadvantages that should be explored for their potential in completions
and workovers. One of the best uses of coiled tubing drilling may be in combination with underbalanced drilling where the well is allowed to flow during the drilling operation.
The simplest coiled tubing drilling bottomhole assembly (BHA) includes a bit, mud motor, stabilizers or
collars, the connector and the coil. The abilities of coiled tubing for drilling include a continuously fed
fluid transfer mechanism (the coil) with no tool joints. This one feature allows the smooth external wall
that can be sealed very easily at the surface. Fluids returning from downhole up the annular area are
vented under pressure to surface separation equipment and small kicks and gases can be handled
easily.
In many of the first examples of coiled tubing milling and drilling, the mud motors which provide turning ability at bit often stalled or stopped turning because of excess loads placed on the bits from either
the string or the bottomhole assembly. This reoccurring motor stalling problem resulted in very slow
penetration. Motor stalls typically occur when downward forces (weight and force) at the bit are
greater than the ability of the motor to turn the bit. There are a number of reasons for motor stalls.
1. Too aggressive a bit or mill design will require excessive power to turn. Less aggressive (smaller
teeth) milled and bits are easier to turn, although they may drill some materials slightly slower.
2. Coiled tubing milling and drilling typically uses smaller motors with less torque. The smaller
motor design utilizes very small clearances and small loaders and stators in the mud motors.
3. In deviated wells, trying to apply force on coiled tubing from the surface may result in first sinusoidal and then helical buckling. When buckling occurs, regardless of its location in the wellbore,
the stored energy will try to work its way either up or down and add an extra force against the bit
the surface unit.
4. The injector feed control at the surface is often a major source of the problem. The injector is a

source of all upward and downward force exclusive of drill collars and other weight. Ideally, the
feed of the coiled tubing through the injector should be no faster than the penetration through the
bit or mill. If too much tubing runs through the injector at any time, the total force on the bit
increases and a motor stall may occur. For best results, very slow speed or micro movement of
the injector head should be possible in any unit used for coiled tubing drilling.

Underbalanced Drilling
Traditionally the main goal of any drilling operation was to keep control of the well. This resulted in a
positive pressure from the wellbore outward into the formation stopping the inward flow of all reservoir
fluids. Underbalanced drilling with a pressure contained system allows the formation fluids to flow into
the wellbore and prevents invasion of the drilling fluids into the formation. Although this method is
more difficult to handle with its increasing amount of fluid recovery, it does provide the very best
method of damage-free drilling. The elements of an underbalanced drilling system include a contained, safe, surface system that can separate solids, liquids and gases. This type of a separator system generally uses solid separation equipment and a horizontal separator to separate liquids and
gases. Other important aspects of underbalanced drilling include adequate hydraulics of the fluid circulation system to allow bit lubrication, cooling and hole cleaning, plus sufficient pressure in the wellbore to prevent full-scale hole unloading. Typically, underbalanced drilling attempts to maintain from
112-2 Ib per gal under the pore pressure. Depending on the permeability of the formation and the type
of fluids flowing, the pressure might have to be adjusted to keep the solid separation facilities within
their reasonable operating limits.

1-6

Slimholes
Slimhole drilling has become a popular concept in recent years. Although smaller diameter holes are
theoretically cheaper to drill because less formation is actually removed, they are not always a
cheaper hole to drill. Cost of drilling involves not only the time to cut through a part of the formation,
but also involves the use of existing (paid for) versus new and smaller equipment, and several other
factors including pressure control and the cost of the completion. Many times it has been found that
drilling a smaller hole actually costs more than drilling a traditional hole where costs of normal sized
equipments was very cheap in comparison to special ordered newer and smaller equipment.
Pressure control during drilling or workovers in small wellbores is often very difficult. An example,
shown in Chapter 15 on workover fluids and control, shows that the volume of a 1 bbl kick in a small
diameter (3-3/4 in. hole) versus a large diameter hole (9-112 in.) may result in several hundred psi difference just from the volume of the hole filled by the 1 bbl kick. When drilling or working over holes
with small diameters, accurate trip tanks and a functional alarm system must be used to minimize danger from kicks.

Initial Completion Design

Selecting the Pay Zone
Selecting the pay and deciding where to place the wellbore are two of the most important pieces of engineering that most occur in the completion process. Many rocks from shales to fractured granites contain
hydrocarbons, but, not every rock type or reservoir can qualify as a pay zone. Selection of the pay breaks
down into several basic considerations:

1. Prospect development economics,

2. porosity and permeability requirements,
3. hydrocarbon type and saturation requirements,
4. recoverable hydrocarbon volumes (by primary, secondary and tertiary methods),

5. pressure support,
6. reservoir stability,

7. recognition of compartmentalization,

a.

availability of technology to cost effectively produce the reserves,

9. ability to plug and abandon the reservoir,

10. environmental and other risks.

The economics of a project depend simply on whether enough money can be made from sale of the productive hydrocarbons in a limited amount of time to offset the total costs of the project. The associated cost
of the project may include a variety of finding, development, production and abandonment costs. Among
these costs are: prospect leasing, field development, field operation, royalties, interests on the money used,
profit, risks, plug and abandonment costs and contingency funds for all matters problems such as blowouts
and cleanup operations. Substantial deposits of crude oil and gas are known in many parts of the world, but
cannot be currently produced because the production rates cannot offset the cost of development and operation. Every year many of these (outer limit) deposits are being brought on-line as producing reservoirs as
technology is being developed or the cost of development drops through other factors. Even the cost of
Deepwater developments, for example, which can be in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars
can be economic if risk can be reduced and if the production rate from the wells is high. Every project from

1-7

the shallowest stripper well at 2 bpd to the 100 mmscf/d or 30,000 bpd oil wells must be judged by some
risks versus cost recovery and profit factor.
Porosity and permeability are the reservoir storage and pathway of flowing fluids. Porosity is the void space
between the grains in which fluids can be stored. Permeability is a measurement of the ability of fluids to
flow through the formation. Rocksuch as shales and chalk, for example, may have extremely high porosities
approaching 30-40 percent, but the porosity is not linked together, thus the permeability is very low. On the
other hand, naturally fractured formations may have extremely high permeabilities approaching tens of darcies in some cases, but have very low porosity, often only 4-6 percent. The amount of porosity and permeability necessary for a project depends on the production rate needs, although, operations such as hydraulic
fracturing can increase the production rate of a well by a factor of 2 to 10 or more. Fracturing alone may not
make the project economic. The economics of a project are such that every factor must be weighed in turn
in the economic justification and critical factors, such as hydrocarbon storage and the permeable pathway,
must be available before even a huge reservoir with billions of barrels of oil can be made productive. In reservoir selection, often times a porosity or permeability cutoff is used for pay versus nonpay identification.
Recognition of this level from porosity logs and flow tests are often critical in establishing minimum pay
requirements.
Hydrocarbon type and saturation determine the amount of hydrocarbons that may occupy the pore space
of a reservoir. Many factors such as moveable versus irreducible saturations and changing factors such as
relative permeability can make the saturation and permeability values moving targets. There are no set
minimum values for hydrocarbon saturation, however, the best parts of the reservoir will usually have the
higher values of hydrocarbon saturation. Saturation of water may also be a key in pay identification.
Extremely high saturations of water may indicate hydrocarbon depletion or movement of an aquifer into the
Pay.
The recoverable hydrocarbonvolumes are usually calculated form the measured values of porosity and saturation. Oil in place quantities do not indicate that all of that oil can be recovered. The porosity of a formation
varies from very large pores to very small pores and the oil in very small pores often will not flow from the
small capillaries even under very high depletion pressures. How much oil will flow from a rock is dependent
on the size of the pore spaces, the oil saturation and type and the amount of energy available to push the
oil towards the wellbore. Recoverable hydrocarbon estimates may vary many percentage points from what
reality shows later on. The differences many times are in how well the pressure supports the drive mechanism in producing the fluids.
The pressures in the reservoir dictate how much fluid will ultimately be recovered. Many different types of
pressure supports are available. The typical pressure support mechanisms include bottom and edgewater
drives, gas cap drives, volumetric depletion and other pressure sources such as reservoir compaction and
other factors. Each of these pressure support mechanisms has advantages and disadvantages to deciding
recovery in a reservoir. Among the most effective types of reservoir pressure support are the bottom and
edgewater drives. These systems may maintain pressure at initial values clear to the end of the project. The
problems with them is they may produce large amounts of water along with the oil. Volumetric depletion is
usually found in a sealed reservoir and then the reservoir may deplete without producing any water. The
recovery, however, from this types of reservoir is extremely low, since reservoir energy bleeds off very
quickly. Pressure support can be added, in some cases, by the use of water floods, gas repressurizationor
other types of pressure maintenance such as tertiary floods. When factors such as bottomwater or edgewater drive are recognized early, the location of the wellbores can be selected to take advantage of flow
paths of the drive fluids and recoveries can be enhanced.
Reservoir stability is an issue which may effect the initial completion or repairs or recompletionsthroughout
the life of the reservoir. Many geologically young formations lack sufficient strength for formation coherency
during all phases of production. Recognition of this stability issue is usually easy because of rapid drilling
rates, sand strength issues in the wellbore or other factors. The decision on adding a stabilizing completion
is usually made after consideration from initial flow tests and other factors. The most common methods of

1-8

completion in low stability reservoirs are frac packs and gravel packs. Other types of completions may
include resign consolidation or production rate restriction to avoid sanding.
Recognition of compartmentalization is probably one of the most important factors in the initial design of well
completions for a project. Compartmentalization is the division of a reservoir into partial or fully pressure
isolated compartments by faults, permeability or porosity pinchouts, folding, shale streaks, barriers or other
factors. When compartmentalization is recognized, the location and type of wellbores can be selected to
efficiently drain the compartments and to take advantage of fluid flow patterns within the reservoir. Many of
the failures of even large fields can be traced to a failure to recognize compartmentalization during the early
development steps in the reservoir.
The availability of technology to produce the reserves is an area which keeps the oil industry active in
research and development. Technology such as water flooding, hydraulic fracturing, artificial lift, cold flow
of heavy oils, coal degassification and many other projects have increased the worlds recoverable hydrocarbons and continue to be a critical part of meeting the worlds energy needs. When the reservoir flow patterns and other factors are understood, technology can often be developed within a moderate time frame
to meet needs in specialized reservoirs.
The ability to produce hydrocarbons should never outstrip the ability to control the flow or the ability to plug
an abandoned reservoir. Plug and abandonment intentions must take into account that the reservoir should
be left in as good a condition as possible for potential tertiary operations that may recover even more fluids.
Plug and abandonment costs can be a significant amount of the project cost. Offshore plug and abandonment of fields may reach over 100 million dollars. There are many associated risks, both political and environmental in developing and producing a hydrocarbon depositry. These risks must be taken into account
during the economic justification for the reservoir and should offer as good a solution as is possible to the
legitimate concerns posed in any situation.
Once the values are known, selection of the pay can begin. The selection process uses a number of pieces
of information gathered by electronics and other factors.
The objectives in this chapter will be to establish ground rules about what general completion mechanisms have the best fit to the reservoir potential.
Completion design is a function of reservoir characteristics. The problem is that reservoir data, particularly the design sensitive data such as permeability, porosity, saturations, pressure, barriers and longevity, are only fully available after most of the wells in the field have been drilled, completed and
tested. In many cases, after initial drilling and completion, reservoir barriers are finally recognized and
extreme redrilling or stimulations are needed to process the reservoir. The key to a good initial completion is to collect and assess the data at the earliest possible time, to allow the best early choice of
completion.
Successful completions recognize the flow characteristics of the reservoir. There are a number of
completion possibilities; each with a limited fit to the reservoir properties. The following is a general
listing of the completion types with a few of the reservoir variables. The numbers for most variables
are typical but only general estimates.
Vertical well
open hole
natural completion

High permeability (Kh 2 10 md for oil, 1 1 md for gas)

stable formation (no movement or spalling)
no bottom or edge water drives
low KJK, c 0.5 KH) (or deviated wells not considered possible)
no fracture plannedlpossible, no limits on surface reservoir access
laminations not frequent.

1-9

Vertical well
cased hole
natural completions

High permeability (Kh 2 10 md for oil, 2 1 md for gas)

possibility of spalling (no sand movement)
bottom or edge water control needed
low K, (K, c 0.5 KH) (or deviated wells not considered/possible)
no fracture planned/possible
no limits on surface/reservoir access laminations not "frequent."

Vertical well
open hole
frac planned

No limits on permeability
stable formation (no movement or spalling)
no bottom or edge water drive control needs
low K, (K, c 0.1 KH) (or deviated wells not considered/possible)
no limits on surface/reservoir access
multiple frac not planned
laminations not frequent in zones not fractured
bottomledge water not penetrated by frac.

Vertical well
cased hole
frac or frac pack planned

No limits on permeability
180' perforating and screenless pack frac for sand control
120, 90" or 60' phased perfs for other fracs
low K, (K, c 0.1 KH) (or deviated wells not considered/possible)
no limits on surface/reservoir access
multiple fracs planned (all heavily laminated zones fractured)
bottomledge water not penetrated by frac.

Vertical well
openhole
gravel pack

High permeability (Kh2 10 md for oil, 2 1 md for gas)

laminations not "frequent" (h c 2 ft)
no bottom or edge water drive, control needed
low Kv (K, c 0.5 KH) (or deviated wells not considered/possible)
no limits on surface/reservoir access
very high production rates possible
gravel packs only where sand control needed.

Vertical well
cased hole
gravel pack

High permeability (Kh 2 10 md for oil, Kh 2 1 md for gas)

laminations not "frequent" (h c 2 ft)
limited bottom or edge water control needed
low K, (K, c 0.5 KH) or deviated wells not considered/possible)
no limits on surface/reservoir access)
gravel packs only where sand control needed.

Deviated path approach

vertical well in pay

Multi-lateral well
vertical or horizontal

Surface/reservoir access limited

deviated wellbore in pay not practical/possible
laminated zones
zones with barriers.
Surface/reservoir access limited
thick layered pay zones
multiple well types needed
compartmentalized reservoirs
wellbore placed mostly for water control
wellbore placement for sweep/drainage
very limited need for reentry (unless mechanical system used)
no pressure isolation needed.

1-10

Horizontal well
openhole

K, >> 0.5 KH or plan to frac

no inter bed barriers
no sealing lamination unless plan to frac
stable formation (no movement or spalling or plan to gravel pack)
good bottom water control possible
surface/reservoir access restricted.

Horizontal well
liner

K, >> 0.5 KH (unless plan to frac)

Horizontal well
cased

no interbed barriers
no sealing laminations, (unless plan to frac)
some spalling control
no sand control problems
no multiple fracs planned (unless isolation packers set)
limited bottom water drive control
production logs/isolation not needed.
Kv >> 0.5 KH (unless plan to frac)
no interbed barriers
no sealing laminations (unless plan to frac)
no vugs or natural fractures (severe cement damage, unless plan to
frac).

Special considerations:
1. Steeply tilting pay: examine hydrocarbon and water fluid flow path to wellbore including effects
of K, and KH. Also investigate fracture growth and path. May choose uphill horizontal wellbore to
go after attic or up-dip reserves that are above vertical well contact.
2. High permeability streaks: The size and permeability contrast to the reservoir location with

respect to oil/water contact can significantly affect production or water break through. Orientation of the well path or decision to frac may be affected.
3. Salt or techtonic forces: Salt Ylow may produce extreme loads on casing. The normal approach
requires concentric dual casing strings with annular spaces cemented. Techtonic forces, and
some horizontal collapse forces may create point loads on the casing which are better handled
by extremely heavy wall casing strings.
4. Sweep/Floods: Well placement to process a reservoir uses the permeability pathways for best

advantage. Wellbore location, orientation and deviation may be influenced.

5. Fluid Requirements: Heavy oil, scaling, organic precipitation, chronic emulsions, bubble and dew
points and other special requirements may make completion compromises or redesigns necessary.
6. Multiple Zones: multiple zones completions and independent completions may be required by
pressure, fluid or royalty owners.
7. The initial design is the starting place for the completion, however, it should never be construed

to be unchangable. Flexibility is required for any completion to take advantage of information

that can be obtained from drilling or other sources.

1-11

References Drilling
1. Greeham, T., McKee, A.: Drilling Mud: Monitoring and Managing It, Oilfield Review, Vol. 1,
No. 2, p. 41.

2. Jones, F. O., Jr.: Influence of Chemical Composition of Water on Clay Blocking of Permeability,
J. Pet. Tech. (April 1964) p. 441-446.

3. Peden, J.: Reducing Formation Damage by Better Filtration Control, Offshore Services and
Technology, (Jan. 1982).
4. Arthur, K. G., Peden, J. M.: The Evaluation of Drilling Fluid Filter Cake Properties and Their
Influence on Fluid Loss, SPE 17617, Intl. Mtg. on Pet. Eng., Tianjin, China, Nov. 1-4, 1989.

5. Krueger, R. F., Vogel, L. C.: Damage to Sandstone Cores by Particles from Drilling Fluids, Drill.
and Prod. Prac., API, (1954), p. 158.

6. Glenn, E. E.,Slusser, M. L.: Factors Affecting Well Productivity-11. Drilling Fluid Particle Invasion
into Porous Media, J. Pet. Tech (May 1957) p. 132-139.
7. Krueger, R. F., Fischer, P. W., Vogel, L. C.: Effect of Pressure Drawdown on the Clean-up of
Clay or Silt Blocked Sandstone, J. Pet. Tech (March 1967) 397-403.
8. Tuttle, R. N., Barkman, J. H.: New Nondamaging and Acid-Degradable Drilling and Completion
Fluids, J. Pet. Tech 1974.
9. Vidick, B., Yearwood, J. A., Perthuis, H.: How to Solve Lost Circulation Problems, SPE 17811,
Intl. Mtg. on Pet. Eng., Tianjin, China, Nov. 1-4, 1989.
10. Wilson, G. E.: How to Drill a Usable Hole, World Oil (August 1976), p. 40.
11. Wilson, G. E.: How to Drill a Usable Hole, World Oil (September 1976), p. 47.
12. Woods, H. B., Lubinski, A.: Use of Stabilizers in Controlling Hole Deviation, Drilling and Production Practices, 1954.
13. Bowman, G. R., Sherer,
p. 58-66.

B.: How to Run and Cement Liners, Part 2, World Oil, (May 1988),

14. Adams, N.: How to Control Differential Pipe Sticking, Petroleum Engineer, (September 1977).
15. Dunbar, M. E., Warren, T. M., Kadaster, A. G.: Theory and Solutions to Bit Sticking Caused by
Borehole Deformation, SPE 14179, 60th Annual Mtg., Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25, 1985.
16. Paccaloni, G., Tambini, M., Galoppini, M.: Key Factors for Enhanced Results of Matrix Stimulation, SPE 17154, Formation Damage Symposium, Bakersfield, Feb. 8-9, 1988.

Other References
1. See Chapter 15 for all references on Adams.

1-12

Chapter 2: Casing Design

Open Hole Completions

The first decision on casing the pay zone is not of size or weight but whether or not to run casing at all.
Open hole completions represent the simplest type of completions and have some very useful traits.
They also present some problems. An open hole or barefoot completion is usually made by drilling to
the top of the pay, then running and cementing casing. After these operations, the pay is drilled with a
nondamaging fluid. Since the other formations are behind pipe, the drilling fluid overbalance is only
that needed to control the reservoir pressure. This creates less damage.
Open hole completions have the largest possible formation contact with the wellbore, allowing injection or production with every part of the contacted interval.
The effect of the open hole on stimulated operations depends on the type of job. Fracturing operations
are often easier in the open hole than through perforations by less possibility of perforation
screenouts, but the perforations may make the zone easier to break down since a crack (the perforation) has already been placed. Matrix acidizing can more evenly contact the entire zone in an open
hole but is more difficult to direct by straddle packer than in a cased hole. Hydraulic jetting is most
effective in the open hole.
Productivity of open hole gravel packs, especially the underreamed open holes are usually much
higher than cased hole gravel packs.
Why then, are casing strings even used? Part of the answer is in formation (wellbore) stability concerns and part is unfamiliarity with completing and producing the open hole completions. A decision
must be reached on the merits of the completions on the pay in question. If the pay is prone to brittle
failures during production that leads to fill, most operators choose to case and cement. In areas of
water coning or zone conformance problems, casing may make isolation of middle or top zones possible. With the advent of improved inflatable packers and matrix sealants, however, isolation is also possible in open holes, although wellbore diameter may be severely restricted.
Cased Hole Completions
A casing string is run to prevent the collapse of the wellbore and to act in concert with the cement
sheath to isolate and separate the productive formations. The size of the casing is optimized on the
expected productivity of the well and must be designed to withstand the internal and external pressures associated with completion, any corrosive influences, and the forces associated with running
the casing.

An optimum design for a casing string is one designed from "the inside out", a design that is based on
supplying a stable casing string of a size to optimize total fluid production over the life of the well
(including possibility of secondary or tertiary floods). The effective design of a casing string for any
well consists of four principal steps.
1. Determine the length and size of all casing strings that are needed to produce the well to its

maximum potential.
2. Calculate the pressure and loads from predicted production and operations such as stimulation,

thermal application and secondary recovery.

3. Determine any corrosive atmosphere that the casing string will be subjected to and either select
alloys which can resist corrosion or design an alternate corrosion control system.

2- 1

4. Determine the weight and grade of casing that will satisfactorily resist all of the mechanical,

hydraulic, and chemical forces applied.

The sizing of a casing string must be complete before finalizing the bit program during the planning of
the well. A casing string can be visualized as a very long telescoping tube with the surface casing or
conductor pipe as the first segment and the deepest production string or liner as the smallest, most
extended section. Each successive (deeper) segment of the casing string must pass through the last
section with enough clearance to avoid sticking. Figure 2.1 illustrates the way the casing string fits
together. The drill bits used for each section are usually 1.5 to 3 in. or more larger than the casing 0.d.
to be run. When one section is cased and cemented, a bit just small enough to pass through the casing drift ID is run to drill to the next casing seat (casing shoe set depth). During drilling, departing from
the bit program is often required, especially in a wildcat when the fluid pressures in the formations
cannot be controlled with a single mud weight without either breaking down some formations by
hydraulic fracturing with the mud, or allowing input of fluid from other formations because of low
hydrostatic drilling mud pressure (a kick). Ideally, just before this noncontrollable point is reached, the
casing point is designated and a casing string is run. Economics of drilling and cementing dictate
that these casing points be as far apart as formation pressures and hole stability will allow. Use of as
few casing strings as possible also permits larger casing to be used across the production zone without using extremely large diameter surface strings.

ii

-.;$:$$,y;.
........
........
..........
.. ;,...........
: .........

F
..........
x:;,.+;:<: ..:.::::::.

......:>.
...,...>~..:2!:...:,

E.iZ:.:i;i

i.....

0.

YDRO-PRESSURE3

WEUS

b. GEO- PRESSURED

WELLS

(Buzarde et al., SPE, 1972)

Figure 2.1:

Typical casing strings for normal and high pressure wells.

In the high pressure wells, the multiple strings in the overlap section will likely be cemented in the annulus, clear
back to the liner top or to surface on a casing string.

Use of small casing severely restricts the opportunities for deepening the well or using larger pumps.
Use of small casing to save on drilling costs is usually a poor choice in any area in which high production rates (including water floods) are expected.
Description of Casing Strings

There are several different casing strings that are run during the completion of a well. These strings
vary in design, material of construction and purpose. The following paragraphs are brief descriptions
of the common required strings and specialty equipment.

2-2

The conductor pipe is the first casing which is run in the well. This casing is usually large diameter and
may be set with the spudding arm on the rig (The spudding arm drives in the casing.). The primary
purpose of the conductor casing is as a flow line to allow mud to return to the pits and to stabilize the
upper part of a hole that may be composed of loose soil. The depth of the conductor pipe is usually in
the range of 50-250 ft with the depth set by surface rocks and soil behavior. It also provides a point for
the installation of a blow-out preventer (BOP) or other type of diverter system. This allows any shallow
fluid flows to be diverted away from the rig, and is a necessary safety factor in almost all areas. In
areas with very soft and unconsolidated sediments, a temporary outer string, called a stove pipe, may
be driven into place to hold the sediment near the surface.
The well is drilled out from the conductor pipe to a depth below the shallow fresh water sands. The
surface casing string is run through the conductor pipe and has three basic functions: (1) it protects
shallow, fresh-water sands from contamination by drilling fluids, (2) prevents mud from being cut with
brines or other water that may flow into the wellbore during drilling, and (3) it provides sufficient protection of the zone to avoid fracturing of the upper hole so that the drilling may proceed to the next
casing point. This surface casing is cemented in place over the full length of the string and is the second line of safety for sealing the well and handling any high pressure flow.
The intermediate string is the next string of casing, and it is usually in place and cemented before the
higher mud weights are used. It allows control of the well if subsurface pressure higher than the mud
weight occurs and inflow of fluids is encountered. This inflow of well fluids during drilling or completion
of the well is called a kick and may be extremely hazardous if the flowing fluids are flammable or contain hydrogen sulfide (sour gas). The intermediate casing may or may not be cemented in place and, if
not cemented, may be removed from the well if an open-hole completion is desired.
If a casing string is not hung from the surface, but rather hung from some point down hole, it is called
a liner. In most wells, the top of the liner is cemented in place to provide sealing. The top of the liner
is set inside an upper casing string. The section where the liner runs inside another string is the overlap section.

Production liners are permanent liners that are run through the productive interval. On some occasions] they may be run back to surface in a liner tieback operation. The tieback consists of a downhole
mechanical sealing assembly in a hanger into which a linear string or the tie back string is stabbed to
complete the seal. A cement job seals the liner into place in the casing and prevents leakage from the
formation into the casing. The lower part of the casing string, into which the liner is cemented, is called
the overlap section. Overlap length is usually only enough to insure a good seal, typically 300 to
500 ft. Overlap length may be longer where water or gas channeling would create a severe problem.
Liners are run for a variety of reasons. If the operator wants to test a lower zone of dubious commercial quality, a liner can be set at less expense than a full casing string. Also, in lower pressure areas
where multiple strings of pipe up to the surface are not necessary to control corrosion or pressure, the
liner can be an expense-saving item. In wells that are to be pumped by ESPs (Electric Submersible
Pumps), the liner through the production section leaves full hole diameter in the casing string above
the pay for setting large pumps and equipment.
The production casing, or the final casing run into the well, is a string across the producing zone that
is hung from the surface and may be completely cemented to the surface. This string must be able to
withstand the full wellhead shutin pressure if the tubing or the packer fails. Also, it must contain the full
bottomhole pressure and any mud or workover fluid kill weight when the tubing or packer is removed
or replaced during workovers. The decision on whether to cement the full string is based on pressure
control, economics, corrosion problems, pollution possibilities and government regulations.
Casing Clearance
The necessary clearance between the outside of the casing and the drilled hole will depend on the
hole and mud condition. In cases where mud conditioning is good or the mud is lightweight and the
formations are competent, a clearance of 1.5 in. total diameter difference is acceptable. For this clearance to be usable, the casing string should be short. Primary cementing operations may not be suc-

2-3

cessful in this clearance and cementing backpressures will be high. A better clearance for general
purpose well completions is 2 to 3 in. For higher mud weights, poorer mud conditioning, poor quality
hole and higher formation pressures, clearance should be increased. For more information on hole
quality and sticking, review the chapter on Drilling the Pay. Excessive clearances should also be
avoided. If the annular area is too large, the cement cannot effectively displace the drilling mud.
A reference for hole size and casing size for single or multiple string operations are shown in

Figure 2.2.2The solid lines indicate the common biffcasing combinations with adequate clearance for
most operations. The dashed lines indicate less common (tighter) hole sizes or bitkasing combinations. Long runs of casing through close clearance holes usually leads to problems. Tight clearances
should be avoided where possible.

(Oil and Gas Journal)

Figure 2.2:

This chart can be used to select the casing bit sizes required to drill
most drilling programs. To use the chart, select the casing or liner
sire to be used and enter the chart at that sire. Follow the solid
lines to select the applications. The holelcasing combinations
linked by the dashed lines are close clearance and require special
techniques. They should be avoided. The deepest casing is chosen
first and the bit and casing program is built in reverse (toward the
surface from the maximum depth).

2-4

Connections
The threaded connection of casing or tubing is important because of strength and sealing considerations. The connections are isolated pressure vessels that contain threads, seals and stop shoulder^.^
The fluid seal produced by a connection may be created in the threads by a pipe dope fluid or by a
metal or elastomer seal within the connection. Strength of the connection may range from less than
pipe body strength to tensile effciencies of over 115% of pipe body ~ t r e n g t hThreads
.~
are tapered
and designed to fit a matching thread in a particular collar. In the API round thread series, the connection may be either short thread and coupling (ST&C) or long thread and coupling (LT&C) as illustrated
in Figure 2.3. If the thread is an eight round, it means eight threads per inch. The length description
refers to the relative length of the coupling and the amount of pipe that is threaded (the pin). Creation
of a pressure tight seal with an API round thread requires filling the voids between the threads with a
sealing compound (thread dope) during makeup of the joint.

Figure 2.3:

Left: Cut away coupling view of a long thread and

coupling joint (LT&C), round thread.
Right: Close-up of the joint connection showing
relative thickness of metal and position of
threads. Seal is formed with pipe dope in the
threads.

Although the standard 8-round threaded connection is reasonably strong, it does not approach the
strength of the body of the pipe. As tensile loads increase toward the limit of the pipe, the connection
will normally fail by shearing off the threads from the pipe or by thread jumpout caused by pipe deformation under severe loads.
To make a stronger joint in tubing, a thicker (larger outside diameter) section is left at the end of the
pipe so that threads can be cut without making the wall thickness of the pipe thinner than in the body.
This form of connection is called external upset or EUE, Figure 2.4. Its inside diameter is the same as
the pipe. A nonupset, or NU pipe and several other joint types are shown in Figure 2.5 The outside
diameter of the EUE joint is larger than the NU connection, and the coupling or collar is normally manufactured on the pipe. Another method of increasing the strength of the threaded connection is by
upsetting the connection to the inside of the pipe. This internal upset restricts the inside diameter of
the pipe at every joint and is only used in drill pipe where a constant outside diameter is necessary.
Other sealing surfaces are available in special connections and have found popularity where rapidly
made, leak free sealing is important. The two-step thread connection uses two sets of threads with a
metal sealing surface between. In other connections, a groove at the base of the box may contain an
elastomer seal. A variety of connection types and sealing surfaces are available, Figure 2.5. The disadvantage to the numerous thread and sealing combinations is that the connections cannot be mixed

2-5

pin end

box end

outside of pipe

- - - * A + " ~ .

constant inside diameter

Figure 2.4:

Cut away drawing of an external upset connection (EUE).

(World Oil Tubing Tables)

Figure 2.5:

Examples of patented or specialty pipe connectors. Tubing and Casing examples are shown.

in a string without crossovers (adaptors). A more detailed discussion of connections are available from
other sources.14
Casing Weights and Grades

Common casing diameters range from less than 4-1/2 in. to over 20 in., and common tubing sizes are
from 3/4 in. to over 4-1/2 in. In some high rate wells, tubing may be 5-1/2 in. to over 7 in. and 2-7/8 in.
casing is run in tubingless completions.
After the size is determined, the grade of the steel must be selected. The grades, along with weight,
are based on pressure and corrosion requirements. The grades of steel used in oil industry tubulars
are shown in the following table for API and non-API sizes. The letters are assigned only to avoid confusion. Grades N-80 and stronger are considered high strength steels. Use of the higher strength
steels increases cost and decreases resistance to some forms of corrosion. Use of the very hard

2-6

alloys, such as V-150, makes packer setting difficult since the slips have difficulty setting in the very
hard steel of the casing.
API Grades

Minimum Strength (psi)

Yield

Ultimate

The yield and burst strength values for each casing size and weight are available from detailed tables
are used for selection of casing once the necessary strength calculations are made.
Often, because of economics or efforts to lighten the casing string, lower grade or lighter weight casing may be considered. Because the weight and pressure loads on a casing string change from top to
bottom, a well designed string may incorporate several weights and grades of casing.
Casing Design Safety Factors

The design criteria for casing strings depends on the intended use and anticipated stresses. Because
variance exists in both pipe manufacture and formation properties, safety factors must be incorporated into a design. The common ranges for safety factors in normal completion are shown b e l ~ w . ~ ~ ~ ~
Factors such as salt flows,7 very high pressures, sour service,8 reservoir compaction loads,g and thermal cycling'0 may change the safety factors.
tension
burst
collapse

1.6 to 1.8

1.25 to 1.30
1.O to 1.25

Earth shift forces, such as salt movement or other faulting and folding events caused by tectonic
movement or are very difficult to address with a traditional safety factor. These forces have been successfully offset in some cases by designs using very heavy wall pipe or concentric pipe (casing
cemented inside casing) over the affected zone. These types of casing designs are rare and most are
generated by a series of trail and error approaches.
Load Description

The casing string must be designed for any load encountered from mud or reservoir fluids in placement or during any phase of stimulation or production. The common forces are tension during running,
internal pressures during drilling, completion or production, and external pressures caused by drawdown, mechanical loads, and zone pressures. These loads are tension, burst, and collapse. The loads
are often applied simultaneously in different parts of the string, and the forces may interact.
The tension design of the casing string is made as if it were hanging free in air. A safety factor of 1.6
to 1.8 is applied to make allowances for a number of other tension factor^.^*^^'' These factors are
briefly discussed in the following paragraphs. Collapse, burst, and tension forces are explained separately, but all must be satisfactorily accounted for in the final design. The design methods in this book

2-7

result in a conservative design. Each design method is based on the worst possible case that could
occur during running.

Collapse loading is force applied from outside the casing by either fluid pressure in a zone or earth
shift forces. Forces from fluid pressure are collapse loadings while earth shift forces produce mechanical crush loadings. The largest collapse load from fluid pressure will usually be exhibited at the bottom of the string where hydrostatic pressure is greatest. The exception is an isolated, very high
pressure zone. These zones are usually noted on the drilling record as places where kicks are taken.
The occurrence of earth shift zones from faults or salt movement are much harder to locate, especially
on wildcats but may often show up on the drilling record as sticking points (not associated with mud
cake buildup) or zones that have to be reamed or redrilled to get back to gauge hole size. The occurrence of salt zones are a very important tip to potential casing problem^.^ In one study area, 87% of
the wells around a salt dome suffered some casing diameter reduction due to external, earth shift
force.
In the collapse design for fluid pressure, the worst case loading occurs with the unlikely combination
of an empty casing string in a hole full of mud. A proper design, for effects of collapse only, would
be a casing string that is strongest at the bottom and weakest at the top. Collapse is also affected by
the effects of tension, which reduces the collapse rating or the set depth limit of the casing. As an
object is pulled, it is more likely to lose diameter as it stretches in length. This thinning is a force in the
same direction as collapse forces. Fortunately, the point at which the effect of tension induced narrowing of the string is at maximum is at the surface where effects of collapse pressure from hydrostatic pressure are the lowest.
Burst pressure is a force applied from inside the casing by produced fluid pressures, hydrostatic mud
load or addition of surface pressure during stimulation or workover operations. Since there is usually
mud hydrostatic pressure along the outside of the casing before and during cementing, the net pressure or the difference between the pressure inside the casing and outside the casing will be used in
the design of the casing. Unlike collapse, however, the shallower casing section is also important in
the burst calculations from a safety standpoint. Burst pressures exerted by produced fluids are maximum at the surface (no offsetting hydrostatic load), while those exerted by mud is maximum at the
bottom of the well. During fracturing, high burst loads may be exerted all along the string. Because
collapse loads offset the burst load at the bottom of the string, the burst calculation is usually important above the buoyancy neutral point. This will be developed later.
Tension is a force produced by the weight of the casing, the pressure differential, and the mud weights
inside and outside the casing. It is largest at the top of the string and decreases with depth toward the
bottom of the string. The tension load is partially offset by the buoyancy of the string in mud and is
affected by pressure. When the pressure inside the tube rises, the pipe diameter is expanded and the
length shortened or the tension is increased in a pipe that is anchored to prevent upward movement.
When the pressure outside of a tube rises, the tube is elongated or the compression is increased if the
ends are fixed, Figure 2.6.
Buckling failure in casing usually results from axial compression (lengthwise) overloading. The load
produces ridges in the casing walls or corkscrewing of the tube. Either of these actions relieve compression, but the pipe is usually permanently yielded.
The effects of buckling, Figure 2.7, is critical on the design of the casing string. The neutral point,
Figure 2.8, is the dividing line between where buckling may occur and where it cannot occur in a tube
that is evenly loaded around its radius. Above the neutral point, the tube is in tension and will not
buckle. Below the neutral point, the upward buoyancy of the mud and other forces including pressure
and mechanical loading place the tube in compression. Buckling can occur if the compressive load is
more than the pipe can tolerate in the wellbore surroundings. The following information describes the
neutral point, first in a theoretical manner and then in a practical way. There can be a neutral point in
the casing or tubing string described by the formula:*

2-8

-HIGH

-LOW
PRESSURE

PRESSURE

REVERSE W N I N G
The tubing will rhomn if k Is frw
to mow or it will c m t i I tinsion
forts on thr packer if it Is m
strainad from moving.

Th. tubing will kngchrn if k I$ fm

to mow or It will cram I mmp d v e f o m on thr packer if k Ir
mtraind from moving.

(Guiberson)

Figure2.6:

Effects of external and internal pressure on length

change in a tube.
NEUTRAL

COIN7

U
111

Figure 2.7:

(Harnrnerlindl, 1977)

Exaggerated view of tube buckling below the neutral point.

Fz $ PiAi- PoAo
where:

(or axial force rating of the tubular)

Fz

= true axial force

Pi

= pressure inside tubular, psi

Ai

= cross-sectional area of ID, in.*

2-9

Figure 2.8:

(Hammerlindl, 1980)
Stress distributions of a tube under various conditions.

PO

= pressure outside tubular, psi

A,

= cross-sectional area of OD, in.*

When F, is algebraically greater than the right-hanc side of the equation, the pipe tends to be straldht.
When F, is less than the equation, the pipe tends to buckle. When F, is equal to the equation, the neutral point is reached. The right-hand side of Eqn. (2.1) may also be referred to as the stability force.
The true axial force will vary from point to point in the string, and will also vary over the life of the well.
Typical considerations necessary to compute F, include the conditions at the time of cementing the
casing or setting the packer in the case of tubing, as well as changes in the environment (temperature
and pressure) to which the tubular is exposed. For casing, buckling primarily affects wear, particularly
for intermediate strings through which additional drilling will occur. In extreme cases, splitting may
also be common. For tubing, the radial clearance between tubing and casing is usually sufficient to
allow corkscrewing, often producing permanent deformation of the buckled portion of the string.
A special case expression for F, uses Poisson's ratio:

Fz = 2pPiAi
where:

= Poisson's ratio, about 0.3 for this application

This equation is only appropriate for an open ended tube, clamped at both ends, with PO= 0 and
A T = 0 , and ignoring weight. Under the unlikely conditions of a weightless string with no outside
pressure, buckling in tension is possible. To illustrate the impact of Eqn. 2.2, consider a weightless
tube that is open ended and subject to internal pressure only. For this loading, the only axial force is
that due to ballooning given by Eqn. 2.2 and shown previously in Figure 2.6. As the inside pressure is
increased, F, increases as 2pPjAis but the right hand side of Eqn. 2.1 increases as PjAi. The tube will
not only buckle immediately, but will also buckle in tension.
The stability equation is also reported as:12
=

Fa+ PiAi- PoAo

where:

2-10

Fs
Fa

= stability force
= axial load

In relating this equation to Eqn. 2.1, Fs = -[F, - (PiAi) - (PoAo)]and F, = -Fa.

Each zone or section of the casing string is checked for tensile requirements following collapse and
burst calculations. In case of corrections made to a string design to compensate for tension load
requirements, the order of selection is usually: (1) stronger connection, (2) higher grade (stronger
steel), and (3) higher weight. Increasing connection strength and steel grade is preferred since they
increase total string strength without adding significant weight. There are so many premium connections available that it is difficult to present a comprehensive data set. Tables of connection specifics
are published yearly.37
For the sole purpose of casing collapse strength derating due to the effects of tension, a practical
buoyancy neutral point, designated N.P., can be estimated by Eqn. (2.4) where:

N.P.

.(I-&)
(2.4)

where:
N.P. = the neutral point for tension effects on casing collapse, ft
0, = settling depth of casing string, ft
prn = mud density, Ib/gal
65.4 is the weight of steel in Ib/gal based on a density of 489.5 Ib/ft3
The collapse resistance values given in the manufacturer tables are for casing that is not affected by
axial load. In a well, the casing will be stressed by fluid pressures, Figure 2.9, mechanical bending
forces, Figure 2.10, and tensile forces produced by the hanging weight of the casing. In collapse calculations, axial tension produces a reduction in collapse resistance. For purposes of this example, the
axial tension is assumed to be from tension loads on a straight, free hanging pipe and not from bending loads.

The equivalent yield strength, Ypal is:5

x

Y,,,

[ ( 1 - 0.75 ( o,/ Y,,) 2,

- 0.5 (CTJ
Y,,) ] Yp

where:
CT,
= axial

stress, psi

Yp = minimum rated yield strength of casing, psi

The percent of yield stress may be calculated by:

Yr =

st
-

Yrn

2-11

Figure 2.9:

Schematic of the location 0.Jxial (03,tangential (03 and radial (or) stresses on a vertical
suspended tube exposed to fluid pressure.
tension from hook loads

Figure 2.10:

Loads on a casing string during running and

on casing landed in a curved section of the
borehole.

where:
Y,

= percent of yield stress

S,

= unit tensile stress, psi

2-12

tension fmhook loads

!

i
tension from casing below

Ym

= minimum yield stress of casing body, psi

The percent yield stress is related to percent of full collapse pressure by the curve of Figure 2.11. The
product of the percent of collapse and the collapse rating is the effective collapse strength (derated for
effects of tension). Because of buoyancy effects, tension only exists above the buoyancy neutral point
calculated by Eqn. 2.4. The effects of compression below the buoyancy neutral point increase the casing collapse resistance although the increase is not accounted for in this design.

gr0
f

'.

TENSION LOAD
BODY YIELD STREETH

(from Halliburton)

Figure 2.11:

Effect of axial tension on collapse strength of casing. The

Y,vaiue is used in the collapse derating calculation.

2-13

Designing for forces involving earth shifts, highly deviated hole, sticking, reciprocating and rotating
casing while cementing or running stresses, involves field optimization and the criteria for design differ
from company to company. Earth shift design usually involves multiple strings of pipe or very heavy
wall pipe across the problem zone. Problem zone recognition can often be made from drilling records
where bit dragging (nonassociated with mud cake buildup) occurs long after a zone is drilled. Wells
near salt domes or flows are considered likely prospects for formation movement.

Casing String Design

A complex solution (API method) requiring computer solution is discussed first, followed by a practical, hand calculated method.
API Equations

Collapse strength rating is the external pressure required to collapse the casing. There are several
methods for designing casing strings that will produce an acceptable casing design. Most methods
use an x-diagram graphical approach or a calculated design based on a single strength concern in
each area of design. The API procedure recognizes the changes in steel behavior in elastic, transition,
plastic, and ultimate yield. The procedure illustrated here for determining the collapse strength is
defined in API Bulletin 5C3.15 This casing design section is merely an introduction to the process. For
a complete treatment, refer to Rabia's Fundamentals of Casing Design.14
When exposed to external pressure from mud or reservoir fluids and the effects of axial tension from
the weight of the casing below any point (plus other loads)," a piece of casing may fail in one of three
possible collapse mechanisms: elastic collapse, plastic collapse, and failure by exceeding the ultimate
strength of the material. Each failure mode is bounded by limits of the ratio of casing diameter to thickness, plus a transition collapse formula was added arbitrarily since the API minimum elastic and rninimum plastic curves do not intersect. The transition formula covers this area. The API minimum
collapse resistance equations are shown in Figure 2.12.15
Figure 2.1215

Applicable D range

1. Elastic

46.95x 1O6
p c = D ( D ,)2

D,2+

BIA

t - 3BIA

t 7-

2. Transition

YP(A-F)
D<2+BIA
<-C+ Y P ( B - G ) - t 3BIA

2-14

3. Plastic
[(A-2)2+8(B+C/YP)]1/2+

(A-2)

2 ( B + C/YP)

pp

575

YP(A-F)
C + YP(B-

G)

(2.9)

4. Ultimate Yield
(A-2)2+8(B+CIYP)1/2+(A-2)
2(B+ClYP)

l
i
l

1
(2.1 0)

where:

2.8762 + 0.10679 x 10-6 YP+ 0.21301 x lO-'OYP

YP

- 0.53132 x 10-l6 YP3

0.026233 + 0.50609 x 10-6 Y P

(2.11)
(2.12)

minimum yield strength of the pipe, lb

- 465.93 + 0.030867 YP- 0.10483 x 10-7 Y p - 0.36989 x 10-13 YP3

(2.1 3)

(2.1 4)

FBIA

(2.1 5)

The effect of addition of axial tension to a casing string has a net effect of reducing the yield stress of
the pipe. The reduction may be severe enough to cause a derating of the pipe by a full grade, e.g., N80 to C-75. The yield strength, Ypa, of the axial stress equivalent grade is:14

Ypa = ( ( 1 - 0.75 (oa/Y P )2,

1 / 2 - 0.5

where:
Ypa

= yield strength of axial stress equivalent, psi

2-15

(Gal YP) ) YP

(2.1 6)

YP

= minimum body yield strength of the pipe, Ib

0,

= axial stress, psi

Axial loads generally result from two forces:

1. hanging weight of the casing string
2. temperature induced forces in thermal wells and in nonthermal wells where operating tempera-

tures may change by over 100F.

Buoyancy

When the hole is filled with cement or mud, there is a buoyancy force exerted on the casing by the
fluid in the hole and opposed by the fluid in the casing. Buoyant force acts on the entire casing string
and results in a reduction in hanging weight. The amount of buoyant force exerted by the mud is equal
. to the weight of the mud displaced by the submerged casing.
The weight of steel at 489.5 Ib/ft3 or 65.4 Ib/gal, is several times the heaviest mud weight, yet the
buoyant contribution of the mud is a significant factor in the hook load during running and cementing
of the casing. Hook loads change dramatically during running and cementing operations and conditions do exist (running closed end casing, dry) where hook load could diminish to zero (the casing
floats).
Buoyant weight, Wb, for an open-ended casing string of air weight W,, filled and surrounded by one
fluid. is:

(2.17)
where:
pf

= density of the fluid

ps

density of the steel, 489.5 Ib/ft3 or 65.4 Ib/gal

When the fluid in the casing is different from the fluid outside the casing, the volumes contained in the
casing and displaced by the casing must be calculated and the weights summed against the air weight
of the casing.
For the special case of an additional surface pressure such as holding pressure on the mud in the casing while cement sets in the annulus, the surface pressure is incorporated with the load produced by
the mud. The buoyant force, FB,applied to the air weight of the casing becomes:

FB

[ (Pis- 0.052pjd)Ai- (PO,+ O.052p0d) A,]

where:
FB

= buoyancy force, Ib

= surface pressure on fluid inside casing, psi (usually zero)

pi,
PO, = surface pressure on fluid outside casing, psi (usually zero)
= density of fluid inside casing, Ib/gal
pi

2-16

(2.1 8)

po

= density of fluid outside casing, Ib/gal

Ai

= inside area of casing, in.2

A,

= outside area of casing, in.2

d
=depth, ft
The pressure terms affect buoyancy much the same way as pressure affects tubing forces.
Example 2.1

A 10,000 ft string of 7 in., 26 Ib/ft, N-80 casing is run in a hole filled with 12 Ib/gal mud. The string is
equipped with a float shoe.
Calculate:
a. hook load of an empty, closed end, casing string in mud.
air weight = (10,000 ft)(26 Ib/ft) = 260,000 Ib
displaced volume of mud = E ( d ) X depth =
4
displaced weight of mud = (2673 ft3)

[12$)(

a( &)'

(1 0,000)

2673 ft3

7 . 4 8 5 ) = 239, 928 Ib

The displaced weight of the mud is a force acting upward on the casing, trying to float it out of the well.
It has the effect of trying to lighten the total load.
hook load = 260,000 - 239,928 = 20,062 Ib
(this ignores the weight of air)
b. hook load of a mud filled string in mud (same mud weights inside and outside).
Since the only action is on the cross section of the steel body, the buoyancy factor difference formula
is adequate.

6,- [I-:)

1-

0.817

489.5-lb

ft3

wb = (260,000

lb) (0.817)

212,420 lb

c. hook load of 16 Ib/gal cement filled string in mud.

total buoyant wt. = wt. of casing in air + wt. of cement - buoyancy of displaced mud.
wt. cement = (x/4)(6.276 in.)2 (16 Ib/gal) (0.052 gal/ft in.2)(10,000 ft) = 257,382 Ib

2-17

buoyancy force = 239,928Ib (from part a)

total buoyant wt. = 260,000 + 257,382- 239,928= 277,455Ib
The effect of gas density is usually ignored for hanging weight or buoyancy calculations. It will be considered, however, in hydrostatic calculations.

Collapse Design Non-API Method

A practical method that considers burst, collapse, and tensile forces is also available. This method
may be worked by equations or by graphical methods. The design is conservative in collapse resistance because of the basic assumptions of an empty string in a hole full of mud. In practice, most casing strings are filled with mud as they are run. The design begins at the bottom of the string.
The collapse force produced by fluid pressure from a homogeneous fluid in the well and an empty casing string is:

(2.1 9)
where:
Pcx = collapse pressure at a depth D,, psi
= density of the fluid on the outside of the pipe, Ib/gal
pf
= depth at the point of calculation, ft
D,

The forces can be visualized graphically by the methods of Figures 2.13 through 2.18.35
b

(Hills)
Figure 2.13: Graphical collapse force analysis.

When the effects of a different fluid, such as cement, inside the pipe is considered, the equation
becomes: 6*1

P,
Pcx
PO

( P O+ D,G,)

- ( P i + D,GJ

= collapse pressure at a depth Dx, psi

= external surface pressure, psi (usually zero)

2-18

(2.20)

(Hills)

Figure 2.14: Graphical burst force analysis.

Figure 2.15: X-Graph design method. Alternative casing design.

(Hills)

Figure 2.16:

Graphical method for tension analysis.

D,

= depth of calculation, ft

Go

= pressure gradient exerted by the fluid outside the pipe, psi/ft

pi

= internal surface pressure, psi

Gi

= pressure gradient exerted by fluid inside pipe, psi/ft

The external surface pressure, PO,is used where there is an outer casing string and an annular pressure will be exerted. This technique is commonly used to back up the tubing and increase burst

2-19

(Hills)
Figure 2.17: Graphical method for over-pull analysis.

(Hills)

Figure 2.1 8: Graphical buoyancy analysis.

resistance of the inner string. It may also be used in some casing designs. Because outside surface
pressure is rare, the term is generally dropped.
It is customary to design the primary strings for the worst possible case. Since the worst possible case
will be when the pipe is empty, the equation reduces to:

(2.21)
The outside surface pressure is assumed to be zero.
The design on an empty pipe string may seem excessive but it is done to eliminate consideration of triaxial forces produced by hole irregularities and other factors3 The worst possible case design, therefore, covers a multitude of other forces. Because of buoyancy produced by changes in axial load
following setting of the cement, portions of the casing string may be in compression rather than tension. Casing above the point of zero axial tension has less collapse resistance, and casing below the
point of zero axial tension has more collapse resistance since it is in compression. The collapse forces
on a casing are usually visualized as being applied by the pressure of the mud in which the string is

2-20

run. The effect of tension in reducing the collapse strength of the casing is generally considered, but
the effects of ballooning, ovality, and temperature changes during circulating are often neglected.
These effects can be severe, especially in high collapse resistance casing such as some 95-grades.
For the burst calculations, one of two API approved formulas may be used. For plain end (nonthreaded) pipe and pipe with premium couplings (couplings stronger than the pipe body), Barrow's formula is used.

Pv

0.875-

2 Y"t
DO

(2.22)

where:
Py
Y,
Do

= minimum internal yield pressure, psi

= nominal wall thickness, in.

= minimum yield strength, psi

= nominal outside diameter, in.

The 0.875 factor allows for a 12.5% variation in wall thickness as permitted by API manufacturing
specifications.
For threaded and coupled pipe, the internal yield is about the same as for plain end pipe, except
where low clearance couplings are used or where the coupling has less strength than the tube. In the
case of lower strength couplings:

(2.23)
= minimum yield of coupling material, psi
Y,
Do = nominal outside diameter of coupling, in.
= diameter at root of coupling when pipe has been fully tightened.
Di
The design for the upper part of the casing string is dominated by the burst consideration. The safety
aspect of controlling kicks and blowouts places a large amount of importance on controlling full well
pressure in the upper sections of the string. The worst case is when a blowout occurs and the hole
contains only gas. The maximum surface pressure then is the maximum formation pressure minus the
hydrostatic load created by gas. As a simplification, the mud hydrostatic pressure is taken as the reservoir pressure (unless the reservoir pressure in known).

(2.24)
Ps
prn
Dt

Gg

= maximum well shut-in pressure

= density of mud, Ib/gal

= depth of kick, ft
= gas gradient, psi/ft (varies from 0.1 to 0.15 psi/ft based on pressure)

In most cases, the potential problem area will be at the casing shoe. The pressure at the shoe can be
calculated from:

2-21

bx

(2.25)

Pbx = burst pressure exerted at depth D,, psi

Q = formation breakdown gradient, usually from 0.7 to 1.O psi/ft
D,
= casing setting depth, ft
D,
= depth where fb, is being determined, ft

To determine the worst case burst pressure exerted during a blowout with gas in the hole, the external
pressure is subtracted from the previous equation.
pbx = GbdDc-

GgC D,- Dx)- 0.052p,Dx

(2.26)

where po equals external fluid density in Ib/gal.

Burst force design may also be considered graphically, Figure 2.14.35
Eqn. 2.26 can be used to make the start of the X diagram of Figure 2.1 5. The X diagram is constructed by collapse and burst c a l c ~ l a t i o n s . The
~ ~ ~maximum
~
burst line is drawn between the calculated burst at the surface and the calculated burst at the casing shoe. The collapse line is drawn
between U and the maximum collapse pressure at the casing shoe, calculated by Eqn. 2.24 or 2.25.
Tension design is the last step for each section of the casing string. The top of each section should be
checked to see that the tensile ratings are not exceeded. The common safety factor is 1.6 to 1.8.
When the tensile limits are exceeded, a change to a higher strength joint should be made. Tension
limits may be gathered from a table of casing properties or calculated by dividing the API 5C3 value
for joint strength by the safety factor.

Example 2.2 Single String Casing Design

Design an economical casing string that will satisfy the pressure requirements of collapse and burst,
and the load requirements of tensile force. Strings increase in cost with increasing grade and weight.
A packer will be set within 100 ft of the bottom of the well. The string must be designed to allow packer
running and setting. It must also allow efficient well operations. Design for an annulus full of mud and
an empty string; these are the worst normal conditions.
Casing Safety Factors: Collapse 1.l,
Burst 1.25, Tensile 1.7
Data from Well file:
A 10-3/4 in. surface string has been landed and cemented at 450 ft.
Depth = 7600 ft
Mud wt = 12 Ib/gal
bit size = 8.75 in.
Frac gradient = 0.77 psi/ft
straight gauge hole
Reservoir pressure = 0.56 psi/ft
water base mud
Buoyancy Neutral Point for collapse calc.

2-22

Bottom hole pressure

( 12) (0.052) (7600 ft)

4742psi

Maximum collapse pressure (from the mud column) is:

(12 lb/gal) (0.052 gal/in.2/ft) (7600 ft)

~ ~ X B H

2-23

4742 psi

Pick a casing grade and weight that has a collapse rating in excess of [(4742) (1.1)] = 5216 psi The
casing data on size, weight, grade, burst, collapse, body tensile and joint tensile are obtained from
pipe books. A partial table for 7 in. casing from one pipe manufacturer is shown in Figure 12.1 9.

L80*
5595s
595.
CYS95*
C95*
PllO

4320
5250
5410
5410
7800
7800
7800
5070
6210

4980
6790
7240
7240
1240
8600
8600
8600
9950

4980
6790
7240
7240
7240
8600
8600
8600
9960

364' 401
489
519
511
510
602
602
593
693

592
631
667
641
696
747
747
122
853

29.00
C75
N00*
29.00
29.00
LOO*
29.00
SS95*
S95*
29.00
29.00 CYS95*
29.00
C95+
29.00
5105.
29.00
PllO
29.00
V150

6760
7020
7020
9200
9200
9200
7820
9700
8510
9800

7650
8160
8160
8160
9690
9690
9690
9690
11220
15300

7650 7650
8160 8160
8160 8160
8160 8160
9690 9690
9690 9690
9690 9690
9690 9690
11220 11220
15300 15300

562
597
587
655
692
692

707
746
718
779
036
836
800
859
955
1243

32.00
C75
32.00
N80*
LEO*
32.00
32.00
SS95*
32.00
S95*
3 2 - 0 0 CYS95S
32.00
C95*
32.00
S105*
32.00
PllO
32.00
V150

8230
8600
8600
10400
10400
10400
9730
11340
10760
13020

8490
9060
9060
9060
10760
10760
10760
10760
12460
16990

8490
9060
9060
9060
10760
10760
10760
10760
12460
16990

7930
8460
0460
8460
10050
10050
10050
10050
11640
15870

35.00
C75
35.00
N8O*
35.00
100*
35.00
SS95*
35.00
S95*
35.00 CYS95*
35.00
C95*
35.00
SlOS*
35.00
PllO
35.00
Vl50

9710
10180
10180
11600
11600
11600
11640
12780
13010
16230

9340
9960
9960
9960
11030
11830
11830
11830
13690
18670

8660
9240
9240
9240
10970
10970
10970
10970
12700
17320

7.000
7.000

38.00

7.000

38.00
38.00

10680
11390
11390
12700
12700

10120
10800
10800
10800
12820
12820
12820
12820
14850
20250

8660
9240
9240
9240
10970
10970
10970
10910
i2700
17320

7.COO
7.000
7.000
7.000
7.000
7.000
7.000
7.000
7.000

26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00

7.000
7.000

7.000
7.000
7.000
7.000
7. COO
7.COO
7.000
7.000

7.000
7.000
7.000

7.000
7.000

7.000
7.000
7.000
7.000
?.COO
7.000
7.000
7.000
7.000

7.000
7.000
7.000
7.000
7. COO
7.000

7.000
7. coo
7.000
7.COO

38.00
38.00
38.00

7.000

38.00
38.00

7.000
7.000

38.00

K55*
C75

N8O*

C75
N8O*
L8O*
5595.
595.
CYS95*
C95*
S105*

38-00 P l l O
V150

12700
13420
14040
15110
19240

4980

4980
6790
7240
7240
7240
8600
8600
8600
9960

415 -362
566 -362
604' -362
60* -362
601 -362
717 -362
717 -362
117 - 3 6 2
830 -362

6.276
6.276
6.276
6.276
6.276
6.276
6.276
6.276
6.276

6.151
6.151
6.151
6.151
6.151
6.151
6.151
6.151
6.151

634
676
676
676
803

929 - 4 0 8
1267 - 4 0 8

6.184
6.184
6.184
6.184
6.184
6.184
6.184
6.104
6.184
6.184

6.059
6.059
6.059
6.059
6.059
6.059
6.059
6.059
6.059
6.059

812 891
768
947
897 1053
1180 1370

'699
745
745
745
885
985
805
885
1025
1398

6.094
6.094
6.094
6.094
6.094
6.094
6.094
5.094
6.094
6.094

5.969
5.969
5.969
5.969
5.969
5.969
5.969
5.969
5.969
5.969

7930
8460
8460
8460
10050
10050
10050
10050
11640
15870

703 833
746 076
734 833
819 876
865 964
865 964
853 920
901 964
996 1096
1 3 1 1 1402

814
814
814
966
966
966
966
1119
1526

-498
-498
.498
-498
-498
-498
.490
-498
-498

7930
8460
8460
0460
10050
10050
10050
10050
11640
15870

767 833
814 876
8 0 1 833
894 876
944 964
944 964
931 920
983 964
1087 i 0 9 6
1430 1402

822
877
877
077
1041
1041
1041
1041
I205

-540
-540
-540

C83
721
797
1049

633
672
661

779

823
791
860
922
922

738
779
779

-408
-408

-408
-408
-408
803 - 4 0 8
803 -408
803 - 4 0 0

-453
.453
-453
.453
-453
.453
-459
.453
-453
-453

763 - 4 9 8

-240

-540
-540
.540
-540
-540
1644 -540

6.004

6.604
6.004
6.004
6.004
6.004
6.004
6.004
6.004
6.004

'

5.879
5.879
5.879
5.879
5.879
5.079
5.879
5.079
5.879
5.879

5.920
5.795
5.920
5.795
5.920
5.795
5.920 : 5.795
5.920
5.795
5.920
5.795
5.920
5.795
5.920
5.795
5.920
5.795
5.920
5.795

(Lone Star Steel)

Figure 2.19: Casing strength tables from one manufacturer.

The largest casing that can easily be run in the 8.75 in. hole is 7 in. To satisfy collapse pressure
requirements, pick 26 Ib/ft C-75 as a first choice, collapse = 5250 psi. The first casing will extend from
the bottom of the well upwards to a point where a weaker (lower grade or lighter weight) and cheaper
string can be run. That point depends on the pressure rating of the second string. Several small jumps
in weight or grade can be made or just a few large changes. The route depends more on economics
and inventory available than on a scientific selection process. Second casing pick is 23 Ib/ft C-75,
= 3427 psi. How deep can the 23 Ib/ft casing
collapse = 3770 psi derate for safety factor = [3770/1.l]
be set? D, = 3427/(12)(0.052) = 5492 ft.

2-24

The 26 Iblft C-75 (the bottom string) has an initial design length of from 5492 ft to 7600 ft; however,
the collapse rating of the upper string (the 23 Ib/ft C-75), must be derated for the effects of tension
since it is above the neutral point. The 26 Ib/ft casing is not derated for collapse since maximum collapse pressure is exerted at the bottom of the well where the casing is below neutral point and in axial
compression (which opposes collapse forces).
To derate the collapse rating of the upper string for effects of tension:
1. Derate the set depth of 5492 ft slightly; typically 2% to 4% will do. 5400 ft will be used here.

2. Calc. unit tensile stress, St = (6206 ft - 5400 ft) (26 Ib/ft) = 20,956 Ib.
3. Axial load factor, X, = (20,956/499,000) = 0.042, derating factor, Yr, = 0.99 (from Figure 2.11)
4. The derated collapse (for effects of tension) of the 23 Ib/ft = 3427 x 0.99 = 3392.
5. Collapse pressure at 5400 ft = (5400)(12)(0.052) = 3370 psi.

The 3370 psi collapse pressure is less than the 3392 psi collapse rating (derated for safety factor) on
the 23 Ib/ft pipe so the pick of 5400 ft as max set depth is a good one. The bottom of the 23 Ib/ft string
sets the top of the 26 lblft casing. The set points of the 26 Ib/ft are 7600 ft to 5400 ft.
The lesser of the two will almost always be the difference of the pore pressure and the gas gradient. In
special cases where high stimulation pressures must be handled, the stimulation pressure may be
selected as the design criteria. Since the top of the 26 Ib/ft is above the neutral point, the burst design
begins to govern. The 23 lblft will also be checked for burst to see how shallow it can be safely set.
For a burst design, a surface pressure is needed. Use lesser of:
Max pressure at surface = frac press at bottom - gas grad.
P S m a = [(7600 ft)(0.77 psi/ft)-(7600)(0.1 psi/ft)] = (5852-760) = 5092 psi

or
Max pressure at surface = pore pressure - gas gradient
PSm, = [(7600 ft)(O.56 psi/ft)-(7600)(0.1 psilft)] = 3496 psi
Since the 3496 psi is the highest likely pressure while running pipe (before cementing), it will be used
for my design. There will be many cases where the pore pressure is not known. In these cases, use
the mud weight to approximate the pore pressure.

Burst Design (The burst rating of 23 Ib/ft C-75 = 5940 psi)

The shallowest that the 23 Ib/ft can be set is:

3496 - (594OD.25)
Dx =
(0.624 - 0.1 )
Since the value of
from 5400 to 0.

- 3496 - 4752 <

(0.524)

D, is less than zero, the 23 Ib/ft C-75 can be set to surface. The 23 Ib/ft C-75 runs

If the fracture breakdown pressure (with gas column) had been used,

2-25

Ps,,=
5092 psi, the top of the 23 Ib/ft C-75 would have been 649 ft and 23 Ib/ft C-95 would have
needed to reach to surface. Notice that a higher grade pipe was used rather than a heavier wall pipe.
This allows a packer to be run from surface that would set in the 23 Ib/ft pipe. For some close clearance packers, the packer for 23 Ib/ft may not be able to pass through even one joint of heavier wallpipe that was set at the top of the well.
Tensile (uncorrected for buoyancy)

Design

0 - 5400 ft

23 Ib/ft C-75

5400 ft - 7600 ft

26 Ib/ft C-75

Notice that the tensile calculations on the bottom most string only extend to the neutral point.
An intermediate string is slightly different from a single production string since it may experience the
burst pressures from deeper zones. Collapse forces may be felt as well if there is zone communication
between the interval below the intermediate string and any zone that contacts the outside of the intermediate string. This problem is more fully addressed in the section on liners. Depending on the job
conditions and assumptions, a higher pore pressure in a lower zone may have to be used for burst
calculations. It is reasonable in most intermediate casing designs to verify that the burst rating (with
safety factor) is adequate for the mud from the lower zone. If the cement job extends along the full
length of all strings, collapse or burst forces have much less effect.

Example 2.3 Casing Design Intermediate String

Given:
13-3/8" surface casing at 2500 ft
12-1/4" hole drilled to 9500 ft
Mud weight = 12 Ib/gal
Future depth = 12,000 ft, future mud weight = 14.5 Ib/gal
Frac gradient @ 9500 ft, = 0.884 psi/ft
Design a 9-5/8" Intermediate String
An intermediate string is slightly different from a production string since it will experience the collapse
and burst forces encountered during the next deeper segment. If it is fully cemented, it is much less
likely to fail, regardless of the pressure of produced fluid or the mud. Depending on conditions, the job
design may require the intermediate string to stand the pressures of the zone below, particularly the
burst. Additionally, the mud weights inside and outside the string can be considered with the formulas.
1. Determine max BHP
BHP = (pd (0.052)(03 = (14.5) (0.052) (12,000) = 9048 psi
the 12,000 ft depth is used to give a worst case
2. Collapse resistance design and pressures
a. max. collapse pressure generated by mud wt. outside the pipe

2-26

Pcx = Dx (0.052) po- Dx(0.052) pj + ( PO- P;)

po
pi
PO
Pi

= mud density outside

pi

= 0 since the csg is empty, PO= Pi since the top of the string is at the surface and csg

= mud density inside

= external surf. press.
= internal surf. press.

empty
Pcx = D, (0.052) po = (9500) (0.052) (12) = 5928 psi
b. Neutral point (point at which load goes from compression to tension). Note: this is only
usable for casing collapse calculations.
N.P. = D(1-

&)

= 9500( 1

- &) =

(9500) ( 1 -0.183) = 7756 ft

You can round the 7756 value to 7760 to make calculations easier.
c. Casing selection, select lightest, lowest grade. Use safety factor of 1.125 for collapse.
(1) Pick 47 Ib/ft S-95, collapse = 7100 psi, burst = 8150 psi, tension (joint) = 1,053,000 psi
Collapse = 7100/1.125 = 6311 psi (derated) this satisfies Pcx
(2) Pick next lower strength casing, 43-1/2 Ib/ft, col. = 5600, burst = 7510, tens. = 960,000
Collapse = 5600/1.125 = 4977 psi
Now:

Calculate the maximum set depth for the 43-1/2 Ib/ft section. This depth sets the top of the
47 Ib/ft section.

PC

Dx = 0.052 ( 1 2 )

=:

4977
= 7975 ft
0.052 (12)

The 47 Ib/ft casing runs from 9500 ft to 7975 ft.

Since 7975 is below the neutral point of 7760, no correction is needed.
To determine the top of the 43-112 Ib/ft casing string, the base of the next string must be selected.
Select 40 Ib/ft S-95 collapse = 4230 psi, burst = 6820 psi, tension = 858,000 psi. Derated collapse =
4230A.125 = 3760 psi, burst = 6820/1.125 = 6062 psi (both collapse and burst are derated by safety
factor of 1.125.
The maximum set depth is:

Dx = PC/0.052po

3760/ [ (0.052) (12) ]

6025

ft

Since this section will be above the neutral point, the effect of tension on collapse rating must be calculated

2-27

1. Derate the 6025 ft value slightly, use 5900 ft as a first guess.

2. Calculate a unit tensile stress.

S, = (7760-5900) (43.5)

80,910 lb

Note that the weight calculated is the 43-1/2 Ib/ft pipe, above the neutral point. This is the weight that
the 40 Ib/ft pipe feels.
3.

80,910
R = tensile body strength
here.]

80
= 0.074
1, 088, 000

[Note that tensile body strength is used

4. The derating factor, from Figure 2.11, is 0.975.

5. The collapse, derated for tension, is Pc = (3760) (0.975) = 3666 psi.

Calculate collapse pressure at 5900 ft.

P,

DJO.052) (p,)

(5900) (0.059) (12)

3681 psi

The guess of 5900 ft was a little too deep, but 15 psi difference is not excessive so we will keep the
5900 ft depth.
The 43-1/2 Ib/ft casing runs from 7975 ft to 5900 ft.
6. Since it is above the neutral point, the burst design will dominate the casing selection. To start
the burst design, calculate a surface pressure that is the lesser of:
a. Fracture gradient at the 9-5/8 in. casing shoe, less a gas gradient.
b. Formation pressure in the future pay (at 12,000 ft), less a gas gradient. The maximum surface pressure, P,, that the frac gradient will support is:

P,

Dtfg- DtGg = (9500)(0.88)

- 9500 (0.1)

7448 psi

For a calculation of the formation (pore) pressures effect on the surface pressure, use the pressure
on the zone at 12,000 ft. Since all that was given is the mud weight, we use that as the formation pressure gradient. To get maximum surface pressure, subtract the gas gradient (times depth):

Ps

D f ( p f ) (0.052)-Df(O.l)

(12,000)(14.5)(0.052)- (12,000)(0.1)

7848

if this maximum pressure at the surface ever occurred, what would be the pressure at the shoe ofthe
9-5/8 in. casing?

2-28

P(at 9500 ft)

D,(p,)

(0.052)

- [ (0,0,)
Gg]

- [(12,000-9500)

[(12,000) (14.5) (0.052)]

8798 or a gradient o f 0.926 psi/ft

(O.l)]

Since the 8798 psi is above the pressure necessary to fracture the formation at the shoe of the 9518 in., the surface pressure of 7848 psi would never occur. To proceed with burst design, use the surface pressure of 7448 psi from the frac. gradient.
The shallowest depth that a casing string can be set (limited by burst) comes from: Pbx= P,
P O (0.052)
(0x1
b
x

7448 + (0.1) (0,) - (12) (0.052) (0,)

Q,

+ GgDx-

7448 + Dx(0.1 - 0.624)

7448 - Pbx
=

0.524

The shallowest depth that the 40 Iblft pipe can be set is:

D,

7448-6062
0.524

(6062 is the derated burst of the 40 lb/ft casing)

2645 ft

as a check, the collapse pressure is:

(the derated collapse was 3760 for
the 40 Ib/ft casing)

P, = (12) (0.052) (2645) = 1650 psi

The 40 lblft pipe runs from 5900 ft to 2645 ft.

Since the 40 Ib/ft pipe cannot be run above 2645 ft, a stronger pipe is needed. Although 43-1/2Ib/ft
pipe would handle the pressure, the smaller id would restrict the packer size that could be run below it,
hence, a stronger grade of pipe (at 40 Ib/ft) is needed. Since the casing tables show that a 40 Ib/ft P11 O is unavailable, the lower string design must be changed to 43-1/2Ib/ft strings to allow a packer to
pass any section of the string and still be set in the bottom section. Select 43-1/2Ib/ft P-110 for the
upper section (collapse 4430 psi, burst 8700 psi, tension 1,106,000Ib). This practical overriding of the
design theory is very common, especially when higher grades are more available or occasionally more
economical.
Burst = 8700/1.125= 7733 psi

D,

7448 - 7733 <

0.524

2-29

The 43-1/2 Ib/ft, P-110 can be run to surface.

Check for tension design

Final Design

Interval
0-14/5

1475-2645
2645-5900
5900-7975
7975-9500

Grade

Wt
43.5
43.5
43.5
43.5
47

P-110

LI BC

S-95
S-95
S-95
S-95

LT&C
LT&C
LT&C
LT&C

The string from 2645 ft to 5900 ft would have been the 40 Ib/ft except that upper sections had to be
the heavier weight with smaller diameter to handle the burst load. For packer access, the id of the
string must be at least as large at the top as it is in the sections below it.
High Pressure Gas
For purposes of simple calculations, the pressure exerted by the gas column is approximated by
0.1 psi/ft. As pressure rises, gas density increases. In high pressure cases, the hydrostatic column of

gas can be substantial. The following graph, from the Baker Calculations Handbook may be useful in
more closely estimating pressure. More exact figures are available from computer programs that use
PVT data.
Additional Graphical Illustrations
The method of graphical illustration of collapse and burst used in Figures 2.13 and 2.14, can be
extended to analysis of tension, Figure 2.1 6, the stresses involved in overpull, Figure 2.1 7, and buoyancy 2.1 8. All these illustrations are from Hills and are the start of the X-diagram casing design process.
Running The Casing
Dynamic loads from running casing into the well can be estimated with the following formula from
Vreeland.

Fm- W
vc =

pC,A

2-30

(2.27)

.-. ---

Bottom-Hole Pressure
for a Column of Gaseous Nitrogen
-!-

700(

E
a

500(

U)
U)

2
a

3001
<

200(

1001

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Nitrogen Wellhead Pressure in PSI

Temperature of Nltrogen at
Wellhead 70" Fahrenheit

2-31

Geothermal Gradient 1.6" Fahrenheit

Increase Per 100 Feet of Depth

I
I

where:
V,

= critical velocity

F,
W
p

= the force required to yield the casing

= weight of casing hanging below the slips
= mass per unit volume

CO

= speed of sound in the material =

= cross-sectional area

For steel, pC, = &

= 150 lb-sec/h3

For example, the load increment produced when 7 in. diameter, 29 Ib/ft casing is being lowered at
3 ft/sec (12 seconds per 40 ft joint) and is stopped suddenly can be calculated by rearranging Eqns. 2
and 3 to solve for a force, 6 applied at any casing running velocity, V:
F

=VpCd

F
= (36 in./sec) (150Ib ~ e c / i n . ~(8.449
)
in.2)
F
= 46,000 Ib
The force would be in addition to string tensile weights.
Once a usable hole has been drilled, the casing string or liner is run to depth and cemented in place.

Actual running of the string involves several operations to properly place the pipe and to avoid damaging the well. Like any pipe or drill string run in the well, casing is susceptible to differential sticking. To
minimize the problem, mud conditioning and centralizers are used. In the case of differential sticking,
the pull required to free differentially stuck pipe is:9

(2.28)
where:
F
AP

= pulling force, Ib
= differential pressure into the zone from the hole, psi

Ac
= contact area of pipe and mud cake, in.2
= coefficient of friction (avg. of 0.25 is normal)*
Cf
As seen from the formula, differential sticking force (equal in magnitude to F) is dependent upon the
contact area of the pipe and the mud cake and the mud weight. In a situation with 1.5 in. to 2 in. of
diameter difference between pipe and hole, there is about 2 in. contact between the casing and the
mud cake. When the mud cake is thick and spongy or when clearances are very tight, contact crosssectional area may double.

The force involved in differential sticking is illustrated in the following example. For a casing string run
across a series of permeable zones with a total zone thickness of 100 ft, the mud overbalance is
4000 psi at a depth of 8000 ft with a mud weight of 11 Ib/gal against a pore pressure of 10.0 Ib/gal.
AP

= (8000)(11-10) (0.052) = 416 psi

A,
F

= (100x12~2)= 2400 in.*

= (416 psi) (2400) (0.25) = 249,600 Ib

2-32

Increased mud weight and increased contact area can significantly increase the differential sticking
force.
The differential sticking force can be considerably lessened by the use of centralizers. Although centralizers cause an increase in drag in the casing and are often difficult to run in the well near the surface, Bowman and Sherer20*23estimate that the increase in drag from running centralizers will be less
than the weight of the casing over the zone where differential sticking is a problem. In the case of the
previous example, the air weight of a 100 ft section of the 8-5/8 in. casing (40 Ib/ft) is 4000 Ib. Thus, if
the drag caused by centralizers over a 100 ft section were equal to the weight of the casing, the
increase in drag would be 4000 Ib or 1.6% of the differential sticking force. Such an analysis and an
associated estimate of cost savings is dependent on the zone of differential sticking being located
near the bottom of the well. This would mean that only the section of casing to be landed across the
zone would need to be centralized. In reality, the simple example provides a very low estimate of centralizer drag since centralizers need to be run over the entire string and more densely on casing that
passes intervals prone to differential sticking. Centralizers, however, are a necessary design item on
most strings and every effort should be made to run them. It is nearly impossible to differentially stick
a casing string with centralizers on every joint2 but field experience is that it may be difficult to run
that many in a hole with 2 in. or less clearance. Centralizers aid in getting the pipe to bottom, being
able to move the pipe and to improve chances of a successful primary cement job.
The number of centralizers needed depends upon pipe and mud weight, hole deviation and hole condition. Calculation programs are available for centralizer spacing. The number of centralizers per joint
depends upon the lateral forces exerted by the weight of casing and casing
It is this
weight that forces the casing into the side of the hole. Obviously, the lateral force increases with casing weight, hole deviation angle, and weight differential between cement and mud while the cement is
in the annulus. Occurrence of doglegs and other hole problems also influence the force on casing.
The use of centralizers in soft or unconsolidated formations is very difficult since the centralizer blades
or springs will tend to imbed in the formation.
The number of centralizers must be sufficient to offset the lateral force and position the casing near
the middle of the hole.
For the lowest possible drag while running pipe, it is important that the right number and type of centralizers be run. Slim hole centralizers should be used in close-clearance holes. The strongest centralizers are full bodied types described in the chapter on Cementing. Necessary support equipment
includes stop devices to keep the centralizers in place and avoid bunching them on the pipe by free
sliding along the pipe at a bend or a point of close-clearance. Casing collars are usually used for stop
devices when only one centralizer per joint is needed. When more than one centralizer per joint is
required or where a flush joint liner is used, stop devices must be added to position the centralizers.
With the use of very hard grades of flush joint liners such as V-150,slip on stop devices, even those
with set screws or slips may not work.
Centralizers should not hinder the ability to move pipe during cementing: rather the centralizers prevent the sticking that hinders pipe movement. The inability to rotate some liners is often caused by
insufficient starting torque or increased torque as cement travels up the annulus.21The following
example of starting torque for a liner is taken directly from Lindsey.21
For example, assume a liner joint has a maximum allowable torque rating of 5500 ft-lb, and
rotating drill pipe and liner before hanging requires a torque of 3500 ft-lb. After hanging the
liner and releasing the setting tool, torque required to rotate only the drill pipe is 1000 ft-lb,
and rotating drill pipe and liner totals 4200 ft-lb. To calculate maximum allowable surface
torque, the torque required to rotate drill pipe only and the torque to overcome bearing friction
must be added to the maximum permissible liner joint torque of 5500 ft-lb. In this case, it takes
700 ft-lb (4200-3500) to overcome bearing friction, plus 1000 ft-lb to rotate only the drill string.
All 1700 ft-lb of torque is above the top liner joint and must be added to the maximum permis-

2-33

sible liner joint torque of 5500 ft-lb. Therefore, maximum allowable surface torque to initiate
rotation, and for the duration of the job, is 7200 ft-lb - not 5500 ft-lb.
The torque to start rotation may approach the maximum but should reduce to a lesser value as the
string is rotated.20121
The second torque factor increase, that of cement movement up the annulus will steadily increase
rotating torque. The torque limit for the string being run should be known before the job. Torque is read
from a torque indicator or estimated by the number of pipe turns to initiate downhole rotation.21
The most successful methods of rotation are power swivels, rotary tables, and casing power tongs.
The power swivels and rotary tables are the most reliable; casing power tongs are normally only used
for joint makeup.
Drilling a usable hole is vital to the use of centralizers. It is a high risk operation to run centralizers in a
hole drilled without stabilizers. Bowman and Sherer20give four reasons why liners (and other casing
strings) do not make it all the way to bottom:
1. a usable hole was not drilled (the drift diameter is not equal to the bit diameter),

2. differential sticking occurs because centralizers were not used,

3. the wrong type centralizers and support equipment were used, and
4. a dirty hole was drilled (one full of bridges or fill).

Speed of running the string is a critical factor in formation damage since the casing is like a piston in a
cylinder with mud as the pressure seal. The pressures created by running casing can be easily
enough to fracture the formation and force mud into pay zones. Loss of mud in this manner will also
reduce hydrostatic load and can cause a blowout. Safe running speeds on wells with normal clearances and low viscosity mud are 40 to 60 seconds per joint (equal or less than 1 ft/sec). Close clearance strings or heavily gelled muds require longer run times.
A procedure for actual running of a casing string is advanced by API Bulletin D-17, and was reported
by Bowman and Sherer.23

Prior to running the casing, the hole should be cleaned by mud circulation with the bit on bottom and a
conditioned mud with low solids content and low viscosity should be circulated into the hole. After the
casing is run, circulation of mud bottoms up at least twice is recommended. The mud circulation with
the casing in the well is necessary since velocity of the mud in the close-clearance annulus of the casing and hole will be much higher than with the drill string in the hole and more cuttings will be moved.
If these cuttings are not removed, they may form bridges in the annulus, blocking or restricting cement
flow.

Casing String Design Deviated Wells

The basic difference in casing design for a deviated well is the magnitude of the loads encountered in
the deviated or angle build section. This requires bending and torque considerations. Greenip offers
three major points for consideration:
1. Axial and torque loads can be estimated by analyzing separate sections.
2. Relationships can be developed for various parameters in casing string design.

2-34

3. The pickup, set down, and neutral states produce sufficiently different loads and magnitudes to
analyze each separately.

First, divide the string into three segments, (1) the extension or reach interval, (2) the build interval
(containing the deviation) and (3) the vertical interval, Figure 2.20. As with conventional casing
design, the casing in a horizontal well is designed from the bottom up. Interval (2),the build interval, is
simplified by assuming the angle is constant. Interval ( l ) , the extension or reach portion is assumed to
be a constant inclination. An example of the magnitude of the forces at pickup, neutral and set down
are shown in Figure 2.21.

-r

Point 3 -surface

Vertical interval

Point 2 KOP
Build interval
Point 1

TD

(Greenip (Hydril) P.E.I. Dec. 1989)

Figure2.20: On a deviated well, divide the well into three

areas: vertical, kickoff or build interval, and
extended reach interval.
Compression, 1.OOO Ib
-10

-5

0
.

Tension, 1,000 Ib

10

15

20

25
I

30

TD = 6,400 MD
= 0.35
Build angle = 20"/100 n
Reach length = 2.000 R
Reach angle = 80'

(Greenip (Hydril) P.E.I. Dec. 1989)

Figure 2.21: The stress in the casing is most in the build section.
Conditions are shown for set down, neutral and
pickup.

2-35

Liner Design
A liner is a casing string that does not extend back to surface. Liners may be permanent or temporary
and run for a variety of reason^:^*^^^
1. Wear protection of the permanent casing string from rotating drill pipe or frequent tubing move-

ment, especially in a deviated section.

2. Correction of hole difficulty such as doglegs, Key seats, or ledges.
3. Zone isolation of a high pressure zone or a lost circulation zone.
4. As an economical alternative to a full casing string.

5. To allow adequate room above the liner top for a large diameter pump.
6. To reduce casing tension loads in deep wells or to allow use of an available, low strength connection.
7 . For repair of leaks or buckled casing.

8. For casing strengthening in earth shift zones.

Most reasons for liner design incorporate the cost reduction factor of not running casing back to surface. Liners have drawbacks as well, including several problems related to liner cementing. From a
design standpoint, perhaps the biggest concern is that the intermediate string or the last full string
becomes the top part of the liner and must handle the burst force generated by the zones crossed by
the liner. Before a decision is made on use of a liner, the strength of the top part of the last full string
must be checked against the new maximum expected surface pressure. Unless proven otherwise by
cement bond evaluation tools, the upper pipe strength alone (no assistance from the cement sheath)
must be capable of withstanding the pressure. If the upper section will not withstand the forces, it
should be protected by running a full string, or, the string should be run before perforating the well.
The first approach liner design is the same as for full casing strings. The collapse, burst, and tension
safety factors and design equations are the same. The basic differences between liner and casing
design come to light in the design of liners for deep wells, hot environments, and very high pressure
zones.

Example 2.4 Liner Design

A well is being drilled through the formations and pressures shown in Figure 2.22. A conventional
design for the primary 9-518in. casing with safety factors of 1.125 for collapse, 1.125 for burst, and 1.8
for tension is:

D x ( 0 . 0 5 2 ) p 0 - D x ( 0 . 0 5 2 ) p ~ +(PO- Pi)

PO = Pi, pi

8.3 lb/galmd p o = 18.5 lb/gal

(Note pi is normally assumed equal to 0 for a conservative design; however, in this case, the high
pressure zone will be isolated by casing and liner during production so a fresh water weight can be
used in calculations.)

2-36

(13250) (0.052) (18.5)

P,,

P,,

NP,

k)=

D(1-

65.4

- (13250) (0.052) (8.3)

6821 psi

-)

13250( 1 - 18.2
65.4

9563 ft

The casing pick for lowest part of full string: Collapse minimum = (6821) (1.125) = 7674 psi satisfied
by 53.5 Ib/ft P-110
(Note: standard casing design can be used to design the full string to surface, although it will not be
done here.)
The first liner will be 6 4 8 in. Mud weight is 9.2 Ib/gal

P,,

14800 (0.052) (9.2)

collapse minimum

7080 psi

(7080) (1.125)

7965 psi

satisfied by 28 Ib/ft N-80

NP,

14800 1-

12718 ft (above liner top)

The second liner will be 3-1/2 in. Mud weight is 15 Ib/gal.

Pcx = 15900 (0.052) ( 15)

collapse minimum

12402 psi

(12402) (1.125)

13952 psi

satisfied by a 9.2 Ib/gal P-110 (NE)

63

NP2 = 15900 1- -

12253 ft (above liner top)

Burst failure of liners is usually caused by kicks while drilling below a liner,39p40pressure when fracture
stimulating, or a tubing leak while producing a deep, high pressure zone. All these factors are made
worse by a poor cement job. Since filling the casing/openhole annulus with cement significantly
strengthens and supports the pipe, a good cement job over high pressure or earth movement zones is
a requirement in any deep well.
An illustration of the complications caused by a poor cement job 39*40 is illustrated in Figure 2.22. After
a primary cement job on the 9-5/8 in. string, the 6-518 in. liner is run and a circulation cement job is initiated. The low pressure zone at 13,800 breaks down while cementing, returns are lost and the
cement top peaks at 13,400 (Figure 2.23a). A top squeeze with cement seals the top of the liner but
leaves an uncemented zone from 13,120 ft to 13,400 ft (Figure 2.23b). While drilling near TD to test a
deep structure, the temperature of the mud goes from 270" (temp. of the zone at 15,400 ft) to the bot-

2-37

tomhole temperature (at 18,500 ft) of 345F. Since both ends of the liner are cemented, stress will be
induced by the temperature rise.

12800 f t

13100 f t

13800 f t

14400 f t
14800 f t

14-6 1bfgaL (0.759 p i f E t )

1yx,f t

TD 1 8 x 0 f t

Figure 2.22:

An example of two liner design for a deep well. The

high pressure zone is isolated by the primary casing string and the first liner covers the lost circulation zone at 13800 ft. The last liner is designed as
the production zone completion string. Cementing
provides pressure integrity and support.

The amount of stress in fixed end casing is

CJ =

Ea(AT)

200T

where:

o
a
E
AT

= stress, psi

= coefficient of thermal expansion, 6.9 x 10-6 in./in./OF, for steel

= Young's modulus, 30 x 1O6 psi, for steel
= increase in temperature, OF

The stress is compressional axial load that can cause pipe splitting or deformation, Figure 2.23~.
Repair of the collapse may be made by running the 3-1/2 in. liner from above the first liner to TD,
Figure 2.24.

Liner Tie-Backs
Although the liner completion described in Figure 2.22 may be used only as a liner, there are some
conditions when the liner may be run back to surface. This liner tie-back may be temporary, to protect

2-38

A
9-5/8",

6-5/8"
20 Ib/ft
N-80

53.5 Ib/ft, P-110

l b / p l (0.946 pi/ft)

13120'

b/gal (0.468 psi/ft)

I
Figure 2.23: The problem of an incomplete cement job on a deep liner below a high pressure zone
A. The initial primary circulation of cement on the liner breaks down the zone at 13800 ft
and the final top of the cement is measured by a temperature log as 13400 ft.
B. Top squeeze job seals the liner top but leaves a void from 13120 to 13400 ft behind the
6-5/8'1iner.
C. The shoe of the 9-518l casing leaks, allowing the high pressure zone at 13100 ft to pressure up outside of the 6-5/8". Deeper drilling increases mud temperature and results in
higher compressive stresses in the 6-518" liner. Combination of outside pressure and temperature induced stress causes collapse and split of the 6-518".

permanent casing strings from wear during drilling4' or permanently, with cement, to strengthen the
casing string through a high pressure zone or isolate and stop a casing leak38or a leaking liner top.42
To allow a tie-back, most liners are equipped with a liner tie-back receptacle. The receptacle is an
internally polished receiver that will accept the seal assembly of the tie-back liner. The tie-back liner
usually incorporates some type of cement port or sliding sleeve and seat that will allow cement to be
circulated through to the annulus and up the annulus to surface. The seat, float equipment andlor
plugs used in the cementing operation are of drillable material.

Cementing
Cementing a liner in place requires very closely controlled application of existing technology4s46 and
a fair amount of risk. Three cementing methods are generally accepted for liners.47 Calculating the
volume of cement to be used in a liner cementing job is extremely difficult and requires more information than available from a simple caliper run. For maximum caliper information, a four arm device
capable of determining elliptical holes should be utilized for hole volume. Cement excesses of
between 20% and 100% have been used on a number of liner jobs with larger excesses being responsible for better bonding and less channels. There is also a direct correlation with absence of channels
and pipe movement. In liners of 500 ft or less, Bowman and Sherer4s46 recommend 100% excess
over the calculated annular volume and on liners of 3000 ft or more at least a 30% excess is recommended. A single-stage cementing job in which cement is circulated to the top of a liner; much like a

2-39

9-5/8", 53.5 lb/ft, P-110

6-5/8",

28 W f t , N-80

3-1/2", 9.2 lb/ft, P-110

Figure 2.24

Collapsed area repaired by running a 3-112" liner and cementing.

primary cement job and may include pipe movement during cementing. A planned squeeze program in
which the lower part of the liner is cemented and the top part of the liner is squeezed later. This technique does not have good middle support and should not be used to isolate high pressure zones. The
procedure is more widely followed in worldwide operations because of perceived problems of disengaging the liner running assembly from the liner and of flash setting of cement. Disengaging from the
liner before cementing eliminates the ability to move the liner and almost universally results in poor
cement jobs.
A third procedure commonly reserved for short liners is to fill part of the hole with cement and then
slowly run the casing string into the cement, forcing the cement to flow up around the pipe. While this
method can be accomplished with the minimum amount of pumping, the lack of circulation can result
in poor removal of drilling mud. The technique is called a puddle job.

Most liner jobs do not include plans to move the liner during the primary ~ e m e n t i n g .The
~ ~ ?reasons
~~
for this include:
1. Detaching the drill pipe from the liner before cementing minimizes the risk of being unable to

detach from the liner once the cement is in place.

2. It may be necessary to change to a higher strength drillstring to allow pipe movement.
3. Movement may cause the liner hanger to become tangled with the centralizers near the top of

the string.
4. Swab or surge pressures may be created during liner movement, especially in close tolerance

wellbores.

2-40

5. Movement of the liner during cementing may knock off debris from the borehole wall. The debris

may cause bridges and reduce the possibility of circulating cement.

Despite the quoted disadvantages of staying attached during the cementing operation, Bowman and
Sherer4346 site several serious disadvantages with releasing the liner before cementing.
1. If the liner is hung off, the small bypass area around the liner offers a greater restriction to flow

and causes more lost circulation because of the backpressure on the flowing cement.
2. If a downhole rotating liner hanger is used (rotation only), additional torque is required to initiate
rotation to overcome bearing friction. Pipe often rotates easier when it is being raised or lowered.
The difference in torque required is often substantial.

3. The potential for sloughing shale and annulus bridging is lessened when the operator can alternate between rotation and reciprocation.
4. Premature shearing of the pins in the liner-wiper plug is less likely because there is no relative

movement between the liner and the setting tool (these two pieces of equipment move
together).49
5. If cement channels and there is a large hydrostatic pressure difference between inside and outside of the running tools, the cups or seals can give way before cementing of the liner is complete.
6. The displacement efficiency of cement around the tubulars when pipe is not moved is lessened.

When liners are close clearance, then the density differences between mud and cement should be as
close as possible. This negates the advantages of hole cleaning by higher density cement. Reciprocation4 of the string is helpful because it produces lateral pipe movement that causes the pipe to
change sides in the wellbore while it is alternately compressed and stretched (slacked off and picked
up).43 R o t a t i ~ helps
n ~ by
~ ~mixing
~ ~ the
~ ~cement into wellbore irregularities and displacing mud due
to drag forces produced by the flowing cement.43
Although liner movement should be a goal in any liner operation, well conditions may prevent any type
of movement. In many cases, however, liner movement can be achieved in a well conditioned hole.
Two clear cases where liner should not be moved are:43
1. When a short or small liner (3-1/2 in. or smaller) is run in a deep well, the liner should be hung off

first since it may be impossible to tell from the weight indicator whether the liner had been
released from the drill pipe.
2. In cases of hole deviation over 35O, reciprocation may be difficult due to high drag forces.
Many of the problems in liner running can be lessened by drilling a usable hole. Problems with keyseats, ledges, washouts, and other nongauge problems intensify when close tolerance liners are to be
run. For additional information on problems involved in drilling a usable hole, refer to the chapter on
Drilling The Pay.
When cement is circulated from the liner bottom to over the liner top, the cement must remain fluid
long enough to detach from the liner and to circulate the cement from the well or to pull up above the
top of the cement with the drillstring. Ifthe cement flash sets, then the drillstring will become cemented
in place and the hole most likely will be lost. Cement may prematurely set, thicken, or cement circulation may be lost for a number of reasons.

2-41

1. Improper thickening or pump times caused by a poor design, ineffective field operations, or bad
test results.
2. Poor density control on the cement or poor mixing of the cement at the surface.

3. Bridging in the annulus caused by a buildup of cuttings. This is caused typically by the increased
number of particles picked up by higher annular velocities with a liner in the hole (due to its
larger ID) than around the drillstring.
4. Plugging from dehydration of cement caused by excessive water loss in openhole sections
below the overlap.
5. Increased hole cleaning of the cement as compared to4he drilling mud.

One of the most troublesome problems in cementing design is inadequate hole cleaning prior to
cementing. This is especially true when light weight, low viscosity muds are used and little attention is
paid to cuttings removal. Heaving shales are also a problem in hole fill and may cause washouts.
Under no circumstances should circulation be halted with the liner in the hole before all of the cement
has been displaced. Due to the small clearances and the yield point of cement, it may be very difficult
to start circulation again.

Problems
1. For a 16,000 ft string of 5-1/2 in., 20 Iblft, C-75, calculate the final hook load at the end of the

cement job when 16 Ib/gal cement is in the annulus to surface and a 10.5 Ib/gal mud is inside the
casing. Surface pressure on the mud in the casing will be 500 psi.
2. A 5000 ft, 4-1/2 in., 10.5 Ib/ft, K-55 liner is run on 3-1/2 in., 13. Ib/ft drill pipe. The liner top is at
12,500 ft. Calculate maximum hook load in a 15 Ib/gal mud if the drill pipe and liner are filled with
mud.
3. Calculate the weight of mud that will just balance the weight (float) of a 5000 ft string of 103/4 in., 40.5 Ib/ft, K-55 casing string if the string is run empty (neglect wt. of air).

References
1. Buzarde, L. L., Jr., Kastor, R. L., Bell, W. T., DePriester, C. L.: Production Operations Course 1.
- Well Completions, SPE, 1972.
2. Oil & Gas Journal Tables.

3. Bollfrass, C. A.: Sealing Tubular Connections, J. Pet. Tech., (June 1985), pp. 955-965.
4. Goins, W. C., Jr., Collings, B. J., OBrien, T. B.: A New Approach to Tubular String Design,
Part 1, World Oil, (Nov. 1965).
5. Goins, W. C., Jr., Collings, B. J., OBrien, T. B.: A New Approach to Tubular String Design,
Part 2,World Oil, (Dec. 1965), pp. 83-88.

6. Klementich, E. F., Jellison, M. J.: A Service Life Model for Casing Strings, SPE Drilling Engineering, (April 1986), pp. 141-152.
7. Rike, E. A., Bryant, G. A., Williams, S.D.: Success in Prevention of Casing Failures Opposite
Salts, Little Knife Field, North Dakota, SPE Drilling Engineering, (April 1986), pp. 131-140.

2-42

8. Greer, J. B., Holland, W. E.: High-Strength Heavy-Wall Casing for Deep, Sour Gas Wells, J.
Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1981), pp. 2389-2398.
9. Wooley, G. R., Prachner, W.: Reservoir Compaction Loads on Casing and Liners, SPE Production Engineering, (Feb. 1988), pp. 96-102.
10. Holliday, G. H.: Calculation of Allowable Maximum Casing Temperature to Prevent Tension Failures in Thermal Wells, ASME 69-Pet-10, Tulsa, Sept. 21-25, 1969.
11. Pattillo, P. D., Huang, N. C.: The Effect of Axial Load on Casing Collapse, J. Pet. Tech., (Jan.

1982), pp. 159-164.

12. Durham, K. S.: How to Prevent Deep Well Liner Failure, Part 2,World Oil, Nov. 1987.
13. Lubinski, A., Althouse, W. S., Logan, J. L.: Helical Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers,Trans.
AIME, June 1962, p. 655.
14. Rabia, H.: Fundamentals of Casing Design, Graham 8t Trotman, 1987, Boston.

15. API Bulletin 5C3:Formulas and Calculations for Casing, Tubing, Drillpipe, and Line-Pipe Properties, American Petroleum Institute, (1983).
16. API Specification 5A: Specifications for Casing, Tubing and Drillpipe, American Petroleum
Institute, (1982).
17. Halliburton Modern Well Completion Course.

18. Woodlan, B., Powell, G. E.: Graphical Method Speeds Deviated Well Design, World Oil,
(Feb. 1, 1975) pp. 40-43.
19. Wojtanowics, A. K., Maidla, E. E.: Minimum Cost Casing Design for Vertical and Directional
Wells, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1987), pp. 1269-1282.
20. Bowman, G. R., Sherer, B.: How to Run and Cement Liners, Pt. 3, World Oil, (May 1988),
pp. 58-66.
21. Lindsey, H. E., Jr., Rotate Liners for a Successful Cement Job, World Oil, (Oct. 1986), pp. 3943.
22. API Bulletin 5C-1.
23. Bowman, G. R., Sherer, B.: How to Run and Cement Liners, Pt. 4, World Oil, (July 88), pp. 8488.
24. Lee, H. K., Smith, R. C., Tighe, R. E.: Optimal Spacing for Casing Centralizers, SPE Drilling
Engineering, (April 1986), pp. 122-130.
25. API Specification for Casing Centralizers, API Specification IOD, second edition, API, Dallas
(1973).
26. Myers, G. M., Sutko, A. A.: The Development and Application of a Method for Calculating the
Forces on Casing Centralizer, paper 851-42-H, presented at the 1968 API Spring Meeting of the
Mid-Continent Dist., Amarillo, TX, April 3-5, 1968.

2-43

27. Lubinski, A.: Maximum Permissible Dog-Legs in Rotary Boreholes, J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1961),
pp. 175-194.
28. Lubinski, A.: How to Spot Dog-Legs Easily, Oil and Gas J., (Feb. 4, 1957), 129-133.
29. Hammerlindl, D. J.: Basic Fluid and Pressure Forces on Oilwell Tubulars, J.P.T., (Jan. 1980),
pp 153-159.
30. Love, A. E. H.: A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, 4th ed., Dover Publications,
NY (1944), p. 144.
31. Klinkenberg, A.: The Neutral Zones in Drill Pipe and Casing and Their Significance in Relation
to Buckling and Collapse.
32. Lubinski, A., Althouse, W. S., Logan, J. L.: Helical Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers, J.
Pet. Tech. (June 1962), pp. 655-670.
33. Hammerlindl, D. J.: Movement, Forces and Stresses Associated with Combination Tubing
Strings Sealed in Packers, J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1977), pp. 195-208.
34. Woods, H. B.: Discussion of The Neutral Zones in Drill Pipe and Casing by Klinkenberg, API
(1951), pp 65-76.
35. Hills, J.O.: A Review of Casing String Design Principles and Practice, API Production Practices, 1951.

36. Greenip, J. F., Jr.: How to Design Casing Strings for Horizontal Wells, Pet. Eng. Intl., (Dec
1989), pp. 34-38.
37. World Oil Tubing Tables.
38. Linsey, H. E., Jr.; Techniques for Liner Te-Back Cementing, Production Operations, 1979,
pp. 37-39.
39. Durham, K. S.; How to Prevent Deep-Well Liner Failure, World Oil, (October 1987), pp. 46-50.
40. Durham, K. S.; How to Prevent Deep-Well Liner Failure, World Oil, (November 1987), pp. 4749.
41. Manley, D. D.; Installation of Retrievable Liners, SPE 17523, Rocky Mountain Regional,
Casper, May 11-13, 1988.
42. Agnen, J. W., Klein, R. S.; The Leaking Liner Top, SPE 12614, SPE Deep Drilling and Production Symposium, Amarillo, April 1-3, 1984.
43. Bowman, G. R., Sherer, B.; How to Run and Cement Liners, Part 1, World Oil, (March 1988),
pp. 38-45.
44. Bowman, G. R., Sherer, B.; How to Run and Cement Liners, Part 2, World Oil, (May 1988),
pp. 58-66.
45. Bowman, G. R., Sherer, B.; How to Run and Cement Liners, Part 3, World Oil (June 1988),
pp. 55-58.

2-44

46. Bowman, G. R., Sherer, B.; How to Run and Cement Liners, Part 4, World Oil, (July 1988),
pp. 84-88.
47. Linsey, H. E.; New Tools Make Liner Rotation During Cementing Practical, World Oil, (October
1981).
48. Linsey, H. E., Jr.; Rotate Liners for a Successful Cement Job, World Oil, (October 1986),
pp. 39-43.
49. Howell, F. R.; Liner Reciprocation While Cementing, Drilling-DCW, July 1979.
50. Arceneaux, M. A., Smith, R. L.; Liner Rotation While Cementing: An Operators Experience in
South Texas, SPE/IADC 13448, New Orleans, March 6-8, 1985.

51. Lindsey, H. E., Durham, K. S.; Field Results of Liner Rotation During Cementing, SPE 13047,
Houston, Sept. 16-19, 1984.

52. Garcia, J. A.; Rotating Liner Hangers Helps Solve Cementing Problems, Petroleum Engineer
International, (Sept. 19851, pp. 38-48.

Other References
1. Arceneaux, M. A.; Liner Operations Made Easy, Pet. Eng. Intl. (Sept. 1966).
2. Goins, W. C.; Better Understanding Prevents Tubular Buckling Problems, World Oil, (Feb.
1980).
3. Short, J. A.; Drilling and Casing Operations, Penn Well Publishing Co., 1982.
4. Haut, R. C., Crook, R. J.; Primary Cementing: The Mud Displacement Process, SPE 8253, Las
Vegas, Sept. 23-26, 1979.
5. Clark, C. R., Carter, L. G.; Mud Displacement with Cement Slurries, J. Pet. Tech., (July 1973),
p. 775-783.

2-45

Appendix 2.A
In the following explanation of buoyancy and neutral point, the explanation of Hammerlind129 is used
here almost in its entirety as he explains the concepts and formulas advanced by Lubinski13 and Hammerlindl.29
A tube hanging free in a well exerts its full weight at the surface slips. If the hole is partially or completely filled with liquid, there will be less weight for the same string since the liquid will exert a buoyant force on the pipe. In Figure 2.8a (from Hammerlindl, 1980), the tube is supported only at the
surface (no liquid in the hole) and the stress distribution in the absence of liquid is shown in
Figure 20.20b. Since the only support is at the surface, the neutral point is at the bottom of the string.
Without fluid, the axial stress, oatmay be calculated at any point x above the bottom of the tube by:

where W, is the average wt (in air) per unit length and A, is the cross sectional area of tubing wall.
The 0, curve in Figure 2.8b connects the peak tensile surface load produced by the weight of the tube
with the 0 dividing line separating surface compression and tension forces,
The radial stress, CJ,, in the tube at any point is:32

where:
pressure inside tube at desired depth, psi

pi

Pe

= pressure outside tube at desired depth, psi

ri

= internal radius of tube, in

re

= external radius of tube, in

rd

= radial distance to point under consideration, in

In the case of the tube hanging free, there is no liquid inside or outside the tube, so the radial stress is
zero.
The tangential stress, at any point, is: For the case of no liquid, the tangential stress is also zero.
In the previous formulas, a negative value indicates a tensile force while a positive value shows compression. The direction of the stresses and their position on the pipe is shown in Figure 2.9.
According to the Archimedes principle, a body submerged in fluid exerts and upward force, Fb, equal
to the weight of the volume, V; of fluid of density p displaced by the body or Fb = p V.
If the tube has a constant cross section, then the volume may be replaced by immersed tube length, L,
and the tube cross section A,

2.A-46

since density (expressed as a gradient) times length is pressure, p, the equation becomes:

where p i s the upward pressure exerted on the end of the pipe. This pressure is a compressive force
and shifts the loads in the stress distribution diagram to a positive shown by Figure 2.8~.
The fluid in which the tube is suspended, creates a stress at every point equal to the corresponding
pressure at that point. This assumes the fluid inside and outside the tube is the same. The axial stress
equation is then modified to include buoyancy:

At this point, the liquid is inside and outside the tube and radial and tangential stresses become important. These stresses are equal to a pressure p and p = p/-p;. At a distance x above the bottom of a
tube of length L,

P = P,+p(L-X)
where P, is the surface pressure (if any). Hammerlindl points out that by substituting Pfor Pi for P, in
the equations for radial and tangential stress, or= at = P (some works use a -P depending on direction
of force or pressure). This shows that stress is equal to the pressure at the point of interest.
The difference in stress distribution with and without fluid is seen in Figures 2.8b and 2.8~.The differences (from Hammerlindl) are:
1. The lower end of the tube is now in compression.

2. The radial and tangential stresses equal the fluid hydrostatic pressure.
3. The tensile stress at the top is reduced by an amount equal to the fluid exerted stress at the bottom.

Static fluids exert a force only in a direction normal to a surface. For the case of a constant diameter
vertical tube, the upward force of buoyancy is exerted only at the bottom. This is a concentrated force.
If a compressive or tensile force, F; is applied at the lower end of the tube, (same fluid inside and out)
the axial stress distribution is changed and <Tabecomes:

The new stress distribution is illustrated by Figures 2.8d and 2.8e (with fluid). Note that the neutral
point is the intersection of the <Taand oh or lines and not the intersection of the 0, with the 0point

2.A-41

line separating compressive and tensile loads.33This is true because 0 8 = of= 0; at the neutral point
and thus o, must equal the full hydrostatic load. This can only occur at the bottom of the tube. The
bottom end of the oa line is displaced from the 0 line, first by the magnitude of the pressure (this sets
the end of the o,,ofline and then by the applied force to set the end of the 0, line. The direction of displacement is consistent with the sign of the pressure or force.
In the absence of liquid in the hole, the neutral point is the point of zero axial stress. Since at the neutral point 6, = o r = og the only point where they may equal zero is the bottom of the tube.
In the cases where there is an applied force, F; the neutral point may be shifted up the hole as shown
in Figures 2.8d and 2.8e. A comparison of the neutral point location shows a considerable difference
in location of the neutral point caused by the fluid. With fluid in the hole, the radial, ob and tangential,
og stresses are no longer zero. They reach a maximum at the bottom and decrease toward a minimum
at the top of the fluid column. Since the three stresses are equal at the neutral point, the neutral point
is shifted up the hole. This is not due to buoyancy but due to the effect of fluid pressure on stability.
The neutral point is located by

When fluid of different densities are inside and outside the tubing, the neutral point is described by?

and the neutral point is

2.A-48

Appendix 2.B API Casing Design Example

Determine the collapse resistance of a casing string when
1. the casing has no tension applied (oa = 0)

2. the casing has an axial load of 215,000 Ib.

Given:
Casing 10-3/4,51 Ib/ft, C-75
id = 9.850 in., YP (body) = 1,092,000 Ib, For oa = 0, Ypa= 0
Converting YPin Ib into psi:
YP(body) = l,092,0OO/((d4)(1 0.7s2 - 9.850)2))= 74,993 psi
Diameter over thickness (wall) is:
D/t = 10.75/(0.9/2) = 23.9
Since the casing is under no load, the mode of failure may be obtained from Figure 2.12. The Dltratio
of 23.9 falls in the range of Figure 2.9b, transition collapse. This means that the collapse resistance
equation is:

P,

(&-G)YP

When calculating values of A and B for calculation of Fand G, use the YP expressed in psi.
From the calculations
A
B

= 3.00
= 0.064

3 B/A
2 + BIA
F

0.0317

= 1.99
= 0.042

If tabulated ranges for Dltare not available, the Dlt range equations from Figure 2.12 may be solved to
specify the proper equation to use. In this case

P,

(1.99
- 0.042
23.9

74,933

3094 psi

The 3094 psi value compares to the book collapse resistance of 31 00 psi. For part b, with an axial
load of 21 5,000 psi:

2.B-49

Oa

axial load

Cross sect. area

215,000 psi
( d 4 ) ( 10.752- 9.8502)

Ypa = ( ( 1 - 0.75 (14,765/74,993) 2,

12

14,765 psi

- 0.4 (14,765 psi/74,993) ) 74,993

Ypa = 66,512 psi

The values A to G are calculated using the reduced yield strength.
A
B

= 2.99
= 0.059 F =

1.96

3BA

2 + BIA
F

0.0293

= 1.96
= 0.039

and

pt=

(23.9lSg6 0.039)66,512

2861 psi

The reduction in collapse strength by 233 psi (7.5% of initial) may be significant in some projects
where collapse forces are near the maximum of an unstressed casing.

2.B-50

Appendix 2.C
The lateral load on a centralizer, from API Specification 1O06p7 is:

Wsjsinej+ wsi+,sinej+

+ 27sir16~

C0Sbi

and the tensile force of pipe hanging below the centralizer is:

Tj

COS^

Tj- 1

sisin 8

+ w s p s e + w-

(tantji- tan?ji-

where:

Ni

= Incremental lateral load or force on a centralizer Ibf/in.

= Casing weight, Ib/ft

Si
Oi

Incremental centralizer spacing or casing length between centralizers, inch

= Incremental hole inclination at centralizer, degrees
= Tension of pipe hanging below centralizer, Ib
= One-half of the change in angle between centralizers

at 6, Ni = W, sin@+ 2 q sinbi
and Ti= Tkl + W, cosOi
If the borehole changes angle rapidly, the hole has a dogleg. The incidence of doglegs significantly
increase the load. The term dogleg refers to a change in hole angle and hole direction; this is a 3-D
curve.
Hole curvature is determined by:

26

[ (y-)+ sin(

2 arc sin sin2

y ) s i n e i . sinei-

L ~ b i n s k ireferred
~ ~ i ~ ~the hole curvature to a standard 100 ft length to define dogleg severity. Total
hole angle 26 and the radius of the hole curvature rare interrelated by the following equation.
LetAL= r - 2 6
Then

2.C-5 1

26 (100)
AL

~ D L S=

and

where:
ljDLS

= the dogleg severity in the half angle 6

AL

= the length between survey points

The 3-D effect of the borehole curvature increases the lateral load on the centralizers. If the effect is
ignored, too few centralizers will be used. With the 3-D effect, an effective load is calculated. The
effective load, N, is defined as the root mean square of gravitational, hole-curvature, and axial-load
forces.

We = ( Fb) ( W,> (s) sine

and

T,

2Tsin6

The maximum deflection, ymm, or the sag of the casing between the centralizers is at the m i d p ~ i n t . ~

and

where:
s

= centralizer spacing in.

2.C-52

E
I

= Youngs modulus, 3 0 ~ 1 0
psi~
= moment of inertia for the casing string, in.4

With the preceding equations, it is possible to calculate centralizer load and the centralizer spacing at
any point along the string as long as sufficient hole deviation survey information exists for the task.
Because of the many values involved, most spacing calculations are done by computer program.

2.C-53

Appendix 2.D
Casing Horizontal Wells
Reach Interval
In the highly deviated section, weight does not play the same role as in a vertical well. The act of
pushing the casing in this section generates a friction force that is in the opposite direction of pipe
movement. This force is

dF

( w ) (BF) (cose) f (p) (W) (BF) (sine)

where:
W
= nominal pipe weight/ft
BF = buoyancy factor
0 = inclination angle
p
= coefficient of friction
dF = incremental tension
At the top of the constant inclination reach section, the tension is:

where:
L
= reach interval length
f1 = tension at the top of the interval
While running the string in (setting down on the string), the friction acts to reduce the overall tension:

For a 4000 ft (measured depth) kickoff point (KOP), Figure 2.20, with a build angle of 20/100 ft, an
inclination in the reach section of 80,a reach length of 2000 ft, pipe size of 5-1/2 in. (17 Ib/ft), coefficient of friction of 0.35 and a mud weight of 9 Ib/gal:

B F = 1 - (9 lb/gal) x (7.48 gal/ft3)

(489.5 lb/ft3)

Fl

2000 [ (17) (0.86) (cos80)

0.86

- (0.35) (17) (0.86) (sin80) ]

5001 lb

Since the sign is negative, a 5000 Ib compressive force must be applied at the top of the reach interval
to push the pipe to the full 2000 ft. The force required would start at 0 and increase to the full 5000 Ib
as the pipe reached the end of the run.
The string is usually picked-up after reaching bottom. This action reverses the friction direction. The
total tension is:

2.D-54

F,

2000 [ (17) (0.86) (COS80)

- (0.35) (17) (0.86) (sin80) ]

15,156 lb

The load would be felt at the top of the section with the full column of pipe in the reach section. Put
another way, it requires 5000 Ib of force to push the pipe and 15,156 Ib to pull the pipe. At any load
between these two figures, the pipe does not move.
In this wide range of loads where there is no pipe movement, there may still be a tension at the top of
the section. At the balance point; friction is zero (no tendency toward movement) and the tension is:

F,

2000 [ (17) (0.86) (COS8O) ]

5077 lb

Rotation and Torque

If rotation is used during placement or cementing, the torque should be estimated. The torque is a
function of the normal force between pipe and open hole, the coefficient of friction and the pipe radius.
Using pipe body outside diameter, OD, the incremental torque is

dM

(p) (W) (BF) (sine) ( 0 0 ) / 2

In the constant inclination reach section, the rate of torque increase rises with length. The torque, M,,
at the top of the section is:

M,

(p)(w) (BF) (sine) ( L ) (OD)/24ft-lb

for the full 2000 ft of casing:

M,

(0.35) (17) (0.86) (sin80) (2000) (5.5)/24

2310 ft-lb

A lower torque may rotate the string if it were being simultaneously picked up or lowered.

The Build interval

Unlike the reach interval, loads in the build interval do not change linearly with measured depth. The
incremental tension, dFf, is a function of the normal force, which is a function of the tension, the inclination and the build angle.

dFf = (w) (BF) (Cose) f (p) (Fn)

and, Fn, the normal force, is:

Fn

([(Ff)
(da) (sine)l2+ (Ff) (do)-

where:
Ff

= tension

2.D-55

[(w>

(BF) (sine)]2}0.5

= incremental change in a azimuth

&I= incremental change in inclination angle

da

If the change in azimuth is zero: Fn is simplified to:

Fn

[ (Ff)(do) - (W) (5171

(sine)]

The effect of pickup and set down on tension in the build section has the same force effect as it did in
the reach section, it opposes the moving force.
Because simultaneous equations are solved for Ff, the program is usually handled on a computer. In
the example here, the tension at the KOP in Figure 2.1 9, can be calculated. For pickup where Fl =
15,156 Ib (at the top of reach section), F2 = 28,100 ft (in 400 ft). This is a 32 Ib/ft average rate of
increase and considerable higher than the 14.6 Ib/ft buoyed weight and gives an indication of the drag
in this section. The rate of increase is not constant, but increases as the KOPpoint is neared. At the
KOF the rate of tension increase is 50 Ib/ft in this example.
For the compression at Point 1 of -5000 Ib (F1= -5000 Ib), the set down load is F2 = -4800 Ib.
In Figure 2.20, Greenip illustrates the magnitude of tension and compression forces in the build and
reach intervals. Note that the maximum compressional force occurs at about midpoint in the build
interval. In this example, the maximum compressional force is about 5800 Ib. While not excessive, this
force does show that intermediate calculations are needed. For the condition of Fl= 5100 Ib (neutral
range), the load at point 2 is F2 = 9200 Ib (from Figure 2.19).
Since the torque at point 2 is also a function of the changing normal force in the build interval, its calculation is also done on the computer. Maximum torque would occur when there is no axial movement
(in and out). This could occur during cementing with rotation but no reciprocation. For the neutral
state, using a value of 2310 ft-lb at point 1 (Ml= 2310 ft-lb), M2 = 2800 ft-lb. Setting down on the pipe
(during wash downs) may increase torque load.
In the vertical section of the hole, the torque is usually ignored and M3 z M 2 .
The program calculations assume that rotation and axial drag are independent of each other. In the
real case, rotation will reduce axial drag and make pipe movement easier either running in or out of
the hole. Since the program ignores the effect, the calculations are conservative.
Bending Stress

The bending stress occurs only at locations within the casing string where there is a change in bore
hole angle. The maximum bending stresses occur in the build section of the hole. These stresses may
dominate the design, especially where the build angle is high. For a given build angle BA, the bending
stress, Sb, in the pipe body is given by:

Sb

k(211) (00)
( B A ) psi

Since the bending stress occurs only where there is a change in hole angle, there is no current bending stress in the constant inclination reach section. The pipe in the reach section must be designed for
bending stress since it must pass through the build angle. In passing through a deviated section, a
tensile force on one side of the pipe body and a compressive load on the other (Figure 2.1 0) is created. For design, bending stress is converted into tensile and compressive loads, Fb. This is accomplished by:

2.D-56

Fb

(Sb) (Ap)

The axial force, Fb, either positive or negative, is matched to the stress, Sb, in a pipe body OD using a
pipe body area of Ap.
In this example:

Sb

f (211)(5.5) (20) = f23,200 psi

and

Fb

f(23,200)(4.962) = f115,OOOlb

The axial load of the casing as it passes through the build interval has an additional, simultaneous
load of 115,000 Ib from the bending force.
Summing forces at the kick off point, the net tension load, F2b, is the total of the axial force at point 2,
F2,plus the force, Fb, caused by bending.
During string pickup,

F2b = 28,100f 115,100 = 143,200lb and -87,000lb

During string set down,

F2b =

- 4800 +. 115,000

124,300lb and -105,900lb

For neutral state,

F2b

9200 f 115,100 == 124,300lb and -105,900lb

During pipe movement with a full string in the hole, the loads experienced at the KOPcould be from
143,200 Ib compression to 120,000 Ib tension. In this example in a medium radius build hole, the load
caused by bending is over 75% of the total load.

Vertical Interval
Once the load at point 2 has been determined, the tension at the surface (point 3) can be calculated
by:
For pickup

F3 = F2 + (KOP) ( W) (BF)

28,100+ (4000)(17)(0.86) = 86,600lb

For set down

2.D-57

F3 = - 4800 + 58,500

53,700 lb

For neutral state

F3 = 9200+58,500

67,7001b

Remember, the 14,000 Ib window for starting pipe movement (between the neutral point and set
down) is the result of friction in the build section and the reach sections.
Application
For a 5-1/2 in., 17 Ib/ft L-30 casing and using a safety factor of 1.33 (Joint efficiency of 75%), the joint
strength, Pj, is

Pi

(0.75) (4.962) (95,000)

354,000 lb

Since the tension loads are highest on pickup, the safety factor at surface is:

354,000/86,600

4.09

354,000/143,200

2.47

At the KOe safety factor is:

For a safety factor of 1.1 8 on the compression efficiency of the connection (85%), the compressive
yield strength, Pjc, is

PiC

(0.85) (4.962) (80,000)

337,000 lb

Since the highest compressional loads are produced when setting down the string, the minimum
safety factor occurs in the first joint below the KOR

337,000/119,900

2.81

For the compression calculation, the load, Fib, at the bottom of the build interval is:

337,000/120,100

2.81

When running the string, it will be necessary to apply compression frequently at the top of the reach
interval to run the pipe into the hole.

2.D-58

Chapter 3: Cementing
Cementing is one of the most critical steps in well completion. Sadly, coming at the end of drilling and
in the haste to put a well on production, rarely is the time and commitment taken to get a good job. We
then spend significantly more time correcting it or battling the effects of a bad cement job.
Cement fills and seals the annulus between the casing string and the drilled hole. It has three general
purposes: (1)zone isolation and segregation, (2) corrosion control, and (3)formation stability and
pipe strength improvement. Cement forms an extremely strong, nearly impermeable seal from a thin
slurry. The properties of the cement slurry and its behavior depends on the components and the additives in the cement slurry. This chapter will focus on the basics of the cementing process. For further
information on cement and the cementing process the reader is referred to the Society of Petroleum
Engineerings Cementing Monograph.
Most cements used in the oil industry are a type of portland cement. The name portland was taken
from an English channel island with a limestone quarry that was used as source of stone for the development of portland cement. Portland cement is produced from limestone and either clay or shale by
roasting at 2600 to 3000F.The high temperature fuses the mixture into a material called clinker
cement. After the roasting step, the rough clinker product is ground to a size specified by the grade of
the cement. The final size of the cement particles has a direct relationship with how much water is
required to make a slurry without producing an excess of water at the top of the cement or in pockets
as the cement hardens. The crystals seen in set cement include: C3S - tricalcium silicate, C2S - dicalcium silicate, C4AF - tetracalcium aluminoferrite, C3A - tricalcium aluminate, MgO - periclase or magnesium oxide, and CaO - free lime.
Not all cements, even those made from the same components, will react in the same manner when
mixed with water. Basically, the differences are in the fineness of the grind of the cement, impurities in
the water and in some minor additives added during the cement manufacturing process. Figure 3.1
gives the API designated classes for cements. These classifications of cement were in response to
deeper and hotter downhole conditions. Note that the useful depths given in the data are derived from
average pumping times of neat (no additives) cement for average temperatures involved at these
depths. Actual well environment controls the limits of the cement. Also, additives such as accelerators
and retarders can be used to modify the behavior of the cement. In this manner, a class H cement, for
example, can be used to much greater depths than the 8000 ft limit seen in the table.
Figure 3.1: API Cement Classes

Class A: For use from surface to 6000 ft (1830 m) depth*, when special properties are not required.
Class B: For use from surface to 6000 ft (1830)depth, when conditions require moderate to high sulfate resistance.
Class C: For use from surface to 6000 ft (1830m) depth, when conditions require high early strength.
Class D: For use from 6000 ft to 10,000ft depth (1830 m to 3050 m), under conditions of high temperatures and pressures.
Class E: For use from 10,000ft to 14,000ft depth (3050m to 4270 m), under conditions of high temperature and pressures.
Class F: For use from 10,000ft to 16,000ft depth (3050m to 4880 m), under conditions of extremely
high temperatures and pressures.
Class G: Intended for use as a basic cement from surface to 8000 ft (2440m) depth. Can be used
with accelerators and retarders to cover a wide range of well depths and temperatures.

3-1

Class H: A basic cement for use from surface to 8000 ft (2440 m) depth as manufactured. Can be
used with accelerators and retarders to cover a wider range of well depths and temperatures.
Class J: Intended for use as manufactured from 12,000 ft to 16,000 ft (3600 m to 4880 m) depth
under conditions of extremely high temperatures and pressures. It can be used with accelerators and retarders to cover a range of well depths and temperatures.
*Depth estimates are based on conditions imposed by the casing-cementing, well-simulation
tests (API RP10-B) and should be considered approximate values. The response of the
cement to these conditions can be modified by additives.
There are a number of other cements that do not fall specifically into any general classification. These
cements are special blends of portland and additives or cements based on other chemistry. They
include pozzlin cement, which incorporates organic resin technology, expanding cements, which
increase in volume as the cement sets, silica and lime cement for hot wells, and low heat generating
cements for permafrost applications. These cements are rarely used in general completions because
they are more expensive than portland or have other traits that are less desirable than those of portland.
Environmental conditions and available completion equipment may significantly affect the performance of the cement or place special requirements on the cement. The unique problems of the effect
of temperature on cement setting and long-term strength of cements have led to development of special cements for both steam wells and those in arctic environments. High temperatures sharply reduce
cement strength and durability, necessitating the development of stabilizers. Silica additives and lime
based cements have proved effective in thermal wells. Permafrost cement was developed in response
to a need to cement formations to depths of 2000 ft without producing sufficient heat of hydration from
setting the cement to melt and destabilize the permafrost.
The most important aspect of cementing blending is obtaining a consistent slurry with the proper
amount of additives and mix water. The optimum water-to-cement ratio for a cement slurry is a compromise. Maximum cement strength occurs at a water-to-cement ratio of about 2.8 galhack. This is
the minimum amount of water necessary to fully hydrate and chemically react with the cement ground
to a size that represents Class G. But, a slurry mixed at this water rate has a very high viscosity and
cannot be pumped. If too much water is used to aid in pumping and displacement, low strength and a
very high free water quantity will occur. The tradeoff between cement strength and the mixing water
volume is seen in the data of Figure 3.2.* Free water is defined as water that is not needed by the
cement for reaction. When flow stops, it separates out to the top of the cement column. Separation
may occur at the top of a long column or in pockets in highly deviated w e k 3 These pockets contribute
to annular gas leakage and other annular flow problems.
Cement is mixed by jet mixers that combine cement and water in a single pass operation or the more
precision batch mixers that mix by circulating in a large tank but only mix a limited volume at a time.'
Although an acceptable slurry can be achieved in the jet mixer by an experienced operator, the batch
mixer allows closer control in critical, small jobs. The jet mixers' are used for almost all large jobs that
require a constant supply of cement slurry at a high rate. The density of slurries mixed by these methods must be checked periodically with a pressurized mud balance to obtain consistent density. Density
is important to control the reservoir pressure and prevent formation fracture breakdown.
The quality of the water used to mix the cement varies widely depending upon the specifications
required by the company involved. Fresh water, seawater and some brackish waters are used to mix
cement slurries. For any source of water, the behavior of the resultant cement in terms of setting time
and pumpability must be known before mixing. Pumpability is measured by a laboratory instrument
called a con~istometer.~
This device measures the setting time of a cement slurry by stirring the slurry
(under pressure) until it thickens too much to stir. The output is as units of consistency, and is time
related. This test yields the time that a particular slurry can be pumped at a given temperature.
Because of the development of offshore fields, seawater has become very widely used for cementing.
Seawater, like most inorganic salt brines, slightly accelerates the set time of cement. Fortunately, as

3-2

2.5

M X I N G YITER

-5ULLONS PER 54ck

7.5

10

(Smith, SPE)

Cement compressive strength vs. mix water volume.

Figure 3.2:

shown in Figure 3.3, the chemical composition of seawater throughout the world does not vary to a
large degree,5 but some chemical additive additions may be necessary to control effects of salt and
temperature. Use of brackish water (from bays, swamps, sewage or produced waters) can cause
problems. High salt contents, especially calcium chloride, may decrease the cement set time. Organic
contaminates (such as oil-base mud) may slow the cement set time, sometimes so severely that the
slurry does not set.

"' 1

Alaska
2000
140
0
9319

1080
360
29499
8.0

Grand Banks
Newfoundland

Trinidad

w*''

Persian

(K2;IS)

I 1 1
Gulf of

Sable

Standard
Sea Water

Suer

Island

AS1M.D-1141

18900
2260
140

19359

10690

11155

1199
370
33559

1297
408
35169

11649

24-00
78
27
11170

3100
171
24
13044

3100
134
11
12499

1118
400
35553

1300
408
35283

1500
520
41359

1570
464
40078

2580
305

8.3

82

7.3

8.2
~

2702
142

82
~~

(Smith & Calvert, JPT, 1975)

Figure 3.3: Sea Water Analysis at Various Locations

Accelerators or retarders may be used in the cement to change the set time from a few minutes to
many hours. A retarder is used in deep or very hot wells to prevent the set of the cement before the
job is complete. Accelerators are used in shallow or cool wells to speed up the set of cement so less
rig time is lost waiting on the cement to set. Values such as filtrate loss control and cement expansion
can also be directly affected. Cement additives may be divided into two general classifications based
on their reaction type; chemical and nonchemical. Nonchemical additives are usually materials which
affect the cement by altering density or controlling fluid loss. Chemical additives modify the hydration
(water intake).

3-3

Cement Density
Controlling the cement slurry density is critical for placing a column of cement where the formation
may be fractured by a heavy slurry or would allow the well to flow if the cement slurry was lighter than
the pore pressure. For a lighter weight cement than the normal 15 to 16 Ib/gal, bentonite clay may be
added to absorb water to yield a lighter cement with higher bound water volume. Ten to 12 Ib/gal
cement density can be achieved in this manner. Grinding the cement to a very small size will also
require more water to satisfy the high surface area and lighten the slurry to the 10 to 12 Ib/gal range.
Ultra-light-weight cement^,^'^ using hollow ceramic or glass beads can reduce the overall weight of
the cement slurry to less than 9 Ibs per gallon. Even lower densities can be achieved by foaming the
cement with a compressed gas such as nitrogen.&The foamed cements can create densities of 4 to
7 Ib/gal but require careful control of annulus surface pressures to avoid gas channels and voids. All
these light weight cements, although strong enough to support the pipe, have less strength than the
regular portland cement. Heavy weight materials are added to the cement to increase the cement density, usually to control the pressure in the formation during the pumping of the cement. Iron ore, barite
(barium sulfate) and sand can create slurries to 25 Ibs/gal. Other methods of preparing heavyweight
slurries include the use of dispersants which allow less water to be used in a cement and still maintain
pumpability. A chart of cement density for various methods of density control is contained in
Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: Density Ranges for Various Types of Cement Slurries

In some treatments where the light weight cements are not used either by preference, economics or
for reasons of strength, stage tools can be used to control the pressures on a zone by running a multi
stage cement job. A staged job separates the cement job into small cement jobs that only support a
portion of the total column and weight. The tools prevent the cement columns from contacting each
other until set. An example of a cement stage tool is seen in Figure 3.5. The simplest tool uses a drillable plug to seal the pipe below the tool and to open a set of ports that allow the next cement stage to
turn the corner and start up the annulus. Some tools are equipped with a seal device that prevents
cement from falling down the annulus and ruining the job by creating channels or by exerting more
pressure on the lower zones.
With these tools, even a deep well with several zones can be cemented by turning the job into several
consecutive jobs. The staged concept can also be done by cementing with a small volume and perforating the pipe above the last cement top and repeating the process. However, the tools save WOC
time between jobs. The obvious drawback to the tools is the same for all downhole tools; reliability.
Fluid Loss
Lost circulation materials control the flow of whole cement into natural fractures or extremely large
vugs. The control materials come in three basic types: granular, lamellated and fibrous. Granular
materials such as sand and other products set a secondary matrix by filling cracks and vugs in the formation. They may have a size range from 1/4 in. diameter to fine powder to achieve control. Lamellated or flaked products such as shredded cellophane stopped at the formation face and create a
blockage on which cement will form a filter cake. Fibrous material such as paper, nylon or polypropylene are best suited to bridge small fractures.

3-4

S-6

can be lost waiting on cement (WOC) to set. This WOC time can be shortened by the use of accelerators. Cement requires very little strength to physically support the casing. More strength is required in
withstanding loading from drill bits and pressure. In designing the cementing operation, it is imperative
that high strength cements be used around the casing shoe (the bottom end of the pipe) and across
potential pay, thief zones (areas of fluid loss) and water producing zones. Filling the annulus behind
pipe and zone separation requires very little strength and more economical cements or cement
extenders may be used.
While the cement slurry is liquid, the hydrostatic force from the weight of the slurry exerts force to prevent entry of gas into the wellbore annulus. When pumping stops, the cement starts to gel and set and
it begins to support itself by the initial bond to the formation. This initial attachment, coupled with fluid
loss to the formation, reduces the applied hydrostatic 10ad.l~Fluids can then enter the annulus, causing voids and channels in the cement behind the pipe. Methods of control include reaction with the formation gas to plug the channels14 and stopping the gas from entering by reducing ~ermeabi1ity.l~
Use
of an external inflatable casing packer (ECP) is also an option.16 This tool operates like a hydraulic set
packer between the casing and the open hole.
The necessary volume of cement is the volume of the openhole less the volume of the casing across
the zone. An excess of 30% to 100% of the total is usually added to the cement volume to allow for
washouts and mud contaminations. The 30% to 100% range of excess cement volumes is large, even
for the technology of the oil field. It reflects the variability of drillers expertise and formation conditions.
Hole volume is calculated from the caliper log. The bit diameter should not be used for hole volume
calculations since it will not reflect washouts. In most operations, 4-arm caliper tools that give two
independent diameters are more accurate than 3-arm calipers that give a maximum or averaged reading.

Cementing Design
The first use of cement in the oil industry is recorded as a water shutoff attempt in 1903 in California.*
At first, cement was hand mixed and run in a dump bailer to spot a plug. Pumping the cement down a
well was soon recognized as a benefit and a forerunner of the modern two-plug method was first used
in 1910.2 The plugs were seen as a way to minimize mud contact with the cement. Although both
mechanical and chemical improvements have been made in the cementing process, the original plug
concept is still valid.
Cement design includes the selection of additives and equipment to remove mud and properly place
and evaluate the cement. The cement design depends upon the purpose of the cementing operation.
The initial cement is usually to fill the annular space between the casing and the hole from the casing
shoe to the surface or a point several hundred feet above the zone that must be isolated. The first
cement job is called primary cementing and its success is absolutely critical to the success of subsequent well control and completion operations. When a primary cement job fails to completely isolate
the section of interest, repair of the cement job must be done before drilling can proceed. These repair
steps are covered by the collective label of squeeze cementing. In a squeeze job, cement is forced
into the zone through perforations, ports in tools, hole produced by corrosion, or through the clearance
between casing overlap liners or strings. Although squeeze cementing has become commonplace, it
is expensive and its use can be curtailed through improved primary cementing procedures.

Primary Cementing
In primary cementing, the object is to place a continuous sheath or band of cement around the pipe
which extends without channels or voids outward to the formation face. Primary cementing is not an
easy operation to do correctly. Many things can happen during this process to create problems or
weak spots in the primary cement design.

3-6

Application
The mixing of cement and water is the first critical area of application of cementing technology. To prevent fracturing or loss of control, the water and cement must be blended together at the proper slurry
density. The weight of the slurry is equal to the weight of the set cement less any weight of free water.
One of the first questions that should emerge in a design is the volume of cement needed for a job. In
a short string or shallow string, complete cement fill of the annulus is needed, plus at least 30%
excess to displace the lead cement that is in contact with the mud as the cement displaces the mud
from the annulus. Cement contaminated with mud will not form an effective seal; it may have mud
channels through it and may not develop any strength. In cases where the mud has not been adequately conditioned before cementing, as much as 100% excess may be appropriate.
The volume of the hole should be measured with a caliper after removing the drilling string and before
running casing. Calipers may be available in 3-arm, 4-arm or multi-arm styles. Three-arm calipers
report an average round hole diameter based on the smallest diameter reading of one of the arms.
The four-arm calipers work as two 2-arm calipers. The data from this tool draws an average of the
hole based on two circles or ellipses. Both tools are capable of underestimating the hole volume.
The caliper tools report the data on a log track that shows deviation from a theoretical line reflecting
gage hole or bit size. Washouts and irregular hole volumes must be calculated to give an accurate
reading on hole size. The easiest way to calculate hole volume in a washout is to use an average
washout diameter equal to at least 90% of the maximum caliper measured diameter where the diameter is fluctuating widely and 100% of the maximum diameter where the hole diameter is more consistent. Calculating the volume of the hole in vertical segments of similar diameter yields usable results.
The problems in cementing through a washout are that fluid velocity becomes very low in a washout;
swept debris at the leading edge of the cement drops out or mixes in and the cement slurry will no
longer scour or clean the mud cake in the washout.
There are two types of oilfield cement mixing equipment: on-the-fly and batch. Batch mixing is done in
a large tank with circulation or paddle mixers. The cement and the water are measured into the tank,
sometimes with an on-the-fly mixer, with small additions of cement or water to get the right slurry density. Although batch mixing is by far the most accurate method, the size of the cement job is limited by
the volume of the tank at hand. Mixing on-the-fly involves moving steady streams of cement and water
through a zone of turbulence produced by high velocity flow, Figure 3.6. The cement slurry produced
in this manner is highly dependent on the experience and attention of the mixer operator. Numerous
problems with variances in slurry weight have led to averaging pods or tanks, Figure 3.7, downstream of the on-the-fly mixer. To minimize the damage produced from lighter or heavier than
designed slurries, most cementing service companies have density monitoring devices to report slurry
density back to the mixer operator.
WATER

0 DRY CEMENT
0 CEMENT SLURRY
CEMENT HOPPER

..

ROTARY

BREAKER 1

JET

TUB SCREENJ
DISPLACEMENT
PUMP SUCTION

.-

(Smith, SPE)

Figure3.6:

A jet mixer. The slurry density is very much

dependent upon the operator.

3-7

CIntrHUpll Pump

(Smith, SPE)

Figure 3.7:

A pod or batch mixer. The averaging characteristics

makes the slurry density much more consistent.

Incorrect cement density can cause gas migration, poor set strength, inadequate cement bond, blow
outs, formation fracturing and lack of mud displacement. Cement slurry density must be rigorously
controlled to enable the subsequent well completion steps to be carried out successfully.
Once a consistent cement slurry blend has been achieved, the second critical area, that of the displacement step, begins. To effectively bond the pipe to the formation with cement, the drilling mud and
the drilling mud filter cake must be completely removed. Failure to remove the cake or mud will lead to
failure of the primary cement job by leaving mud channels in the cement. Failures necessitate
squeeze cementing or repair operations.
Mud conditioning and displacement are the next critical areas of cementing
In order
for cement to isolate zones, a sheath of cement must completely surround the pipe and bond the formation wall to the pipe. The mud cake must be removed and the pipe must be centralized. Centralization is needed to provide sufficient standoff or clearance between the casing and the borehole wall.
Removal of the mud and mud cake is done by a combination of chemical and physical actions that are
well documented but often overlooked during application. The ease of mud removal depends upon the
physical condition of the mud and the access to the mud. Mud displacement begins with decreasing
the gel strength of mud and removing cuttings. After casing is run in the well, the annular space open
to flow is smaller than when drill pipe was present. The smaller annular area creates higher velocities
that can disturb deposits of cuttings. Cuttings can accumulate in the lead portion of the cement, contaminating the cement and creating blockages that can create lost circulation. The presence of a mud
cake will prevent bonding of the cement to the formation. An estimation of the volume of cement
needed for removal of mud cake by turbulent flow is:

Vt = (t,) (9)5.616 ft3/bbl

where
= volume of fluid (in turbulent flow), ft3

V,
tc

= contact time, minutes

= displacement rate, bbl/min

3-8

Studies have shown that a contact time (during pumping) of 10 minutes or longer provides better mud
removal than shorter contact times. The equation is valid as long as all the fluid passes the point of
interest. The equation will not be valid for mud outside the path of the flowing fluid, such as when the
casing is uncentralized and is pressing against the formation.
Movement of the pipe during cementing is one of the best methods of improving the mud displacement and reducing the number of mud channels remaining after ~ e m e n t i n g . Reciprocation
~~~~
(up
and down) and rotation of casing help force the mud from the pipe/formations contact areas and
insure a more even distribution of cement. Rotation of the pipe requires special rotating heads to allow
pumping while turning. Reciprocation, or moving the casing up and down a few feet while cementing,
can be done more easily but does not force the mud from the contact area in the same manner as
rotation. Addition of scrapers to the casing can help remove hard mud cake.24 Use of centralizers minimizes contact area and may make pipe movement easier.
Displacement of the mud and the mud cake cannot always be accomplished by flowing cement.
Heavily gelled muds and tightly compressed filter cakes are very resistant to removal by any flowing
fluid. Special removal procedures are necessary. The basic mud removal step is to pump the cement
in turbulent flow: the combination of the high velocity, high viscosity and abrasive nature of cement
work in unison to scour the formation and casing. During scouring, much of the mud and cake materials are mixed in with the first cement pumped. This contaminated cement must be removed from the
well. In the cement volume design, the allowance for contaminated cement is contained in part of the
30% to 100% excess cement normally designed into most jobs.

If muds and mud cakes cannot be removed by cement flow, special preflush fluids and mechanical
devices are available to improve displacement. To improve mud and mud cake displacement, the
binding agent in the mud must be broken down. In most cases, the mud binders are clay, polymers or
surfactants. Chemical flushes of acids, solvents, or surfactants are useful but must be selected for
action on specific muds. These flushes are pumped ahead of the cement or spotted in the annulus
before the cement job.
Mechanical devices for mud and mud cake removal include casing centralizers, scratchers for cake
The wire or wire rope
removal and turbulence inducing devices to improve mud
scratchers break up the mud cake during running of the casing. Complete removal of the cake is not
necessary; the action of the cement will often be sufficient to remove the cake fragments once the
integrity of the cake has been disrupted.
The alignment of casing in the borehole is an often neglected factor that has a tremendous impact on
mud conditioning, cementing, perforating, and production, particularly in highly deviated or horizontal
hole^.^^-^' Uncentralized casing always lays on the low side of the hole. In soft formations, the casing
may even embed or bury into the wall of the formation. When casing contacts the wall, the drilling mud
cake and some whole mud is trapped between the casing and the rock. This mud cannot be removed.
Mud removal attempts by flushes and turbulent cement flow will have little contact as shown in the
velocity profile sketches of Figure 3.8 and the photographs of mud displacement and channels created in a flow study recorded in Figure 3.9. Cement bypasses the mud and channels are left behind
the pipe. These channels may completely undermine the principles of zone separation by cement and
usually require repair by squeeze cementing. Channels are the most common form of primary cement
failure.
Centralizers and pipe movement can improve
Centralizers hold the pipe away from
the wall of the hole so that cement may more evenly displace the mud and completely fill the annulus.
The design of centralizers varies widely with the application. Centralizing casing in nearly straight
holes is relatively easy, but as holes become more deviated, centralization becomes more difficult. In
the more deviated wells, the weight of the casing will flatten most spring centralizers and may deeply
embed some of the solid fin body units. The actual number of centralizers needed for a well depends
on the acceptable deflection of the pipe and the severity of dog legs in the well. Examples of centralizers and their spacing are shown in Figure 3.10. Note in the examples that the centralizer spacing

3-9

'WO

1W

- VERCENT

75

STMWFF

Figure 3.8:

PERCENT

STUIMFF

30

- PERCWT

STUIWFF

Cement velocity schematic at different

casing standoffs.

decreases (more centralizers needed) as hole angle, pipe size and clearance increase.'^^^ The spacing is usually calculated by computer using a model such as that of Lee et al.27 These programs
project spacing on the input of depth, dogleg severity, lateral load, tension and deviation. Typical
spacing is from 30 to 60 ft between centralizers.
The variance in casing weight can be illustrated by the following examples of buoyed weight of casing.

where:
WCb = buoyant weight of casing, Ib/ft
W,
= dry wt of casing, Ib/ft
pi
= density of fluid in casing, Ib/gal
po
= density of fluid in annulus, Ib/gal

di
= inside diameter of casing, in.
do
= outer diameter of casing, in.
for circulation with an 11.5 Ib/gal mud in a 7 in., 26 Ib/ft, N-80casing:
WCb =

(26) + 0.0408 ( 1 1.5 (6.276) - 1 1.5 (7.0) 2,

21.5 lb/ft

If fresh water (8.33 Ib/gal) is used to displace 16 Ib/gal cement to the float collar, the buoyed weight
becomes:

WCb = (26)

+ 0.0408 (8.33(6.276) - 16 (7) 2,

7.4 lb/ft

Mud retards (slows) the set of cement. Minimizing this effect requires mud removal and separation
from the cement whenever possible. Most casing strings are run full of mud during casing placement
for assistance in well control. Cement displaces the mud from the casing before it flows up the annu-

3-10

(Wilson & Sabins, SPE)

Figure 3.9:

Examples of 5 (bottom) and 7 (top) casing in 9-518

showing the effect of the flow area at a standoff of
60% (both cases). The smaller flow area in the 7 test
leaves a mud channel that will allow communication.

lus. If the mud is lighter than the cement or the mud has high gel strength, the cement will tend to finger or channel through the mud during its trip down the casing, mixing cement with mud. Mixing of
mud and cement in the tubulars can be prevented by use of the two plug system. Before the cement is
circulated down the well, a hollow rubber plug (Figure 3.11), with a disk that can be ruptured at high
pressure, is placed in front of the cement. The cement pushes this plug down to the bottom of the well,
wiping the inside of the casing and displacing the mud from inside the casing ahead of the cement. At
the bottom of the well, the plug landst or is bumped and pressure builds up, rupturing the disk.
Cement comes through the plug and can turn up the annulus. The second plug is dropped at the end
of the calculated cement volume and the cement is displaced down the well with mud or water. The
second plug, or top plug, is solid and has the same set of wipers as the first plug. At the bottom of the
hole, the top plug reaches the top of the first plug and pressure rises, indicating that the plug has been
bumped. The plugs are made of drillable material that can be easily removed if the well is deepened.
Correct loading of the plugs is critical. If the plug sequence is accidentally reversed and the top plug is
dropped first, the job will end when this solid plug hits bottom and the casing is left filled with cement.
The actual displacement in the wellbore is very much different than the surface pump rate might indicate, especially when the density of the mud is much less than the density of the cement.* When a
lighter mud is displaced, the cement is in a free fall. The cement density is enough to rapidly push

3-11

Maximum Spacing Between

Centralizers, (ft) (Standoff 1 in.)
*Casing size and **hole size
Hole
Angle

*5-112 in.
-8-314 in.

10"
15"

63

20"
25"
30"
35O

53

40"

45O
50

57
50
48

46
44
42
40
(Brouse, World Oil, 1983)

(World Oil, 1988)

Figure 3.10: Examples of centralirers and centralirer spacing.

DIAPHRAGM

KILDED RUBBER
CAST ALUHINUM
INSERT

TOP PLUG
(BLACK)

Figure 3.11:

Schematics of the plugs involved in the two plug system. Note the color difference between the plugs. The
color makes identification easier when drilling out a
problem well where the cement has set p in the pipe.

3-12

the mud ahead and displace it from the well without the driving pressure of the pump. This is most
noticeable in the later stages of the job during displacement when the casing contains more mud than
cement. Surface pressure can go to almost zero at low injection rates (the well is said to go on vacuum). At this point, the well is taking fluid faster than it is being injected and mud return rate from the
well can be more than the cement injection rate (a vacuum, with void space, is being created in the
casing at the surface). As the cement turns the corner at the bottom of the well and starts up the annulus, the injection pressures caused by the heavier cement density will climb. The well returns, which
are monitored continuously at the surface, may go to zero as the cement fills the void volume in the
pipe that was evacuated during free fall. It may appear that the well has lost returns by breaking down
(fracturing) the formation. This rapid movement of fluids must be included in the design to allow control of the mud. The problems involved with free fall are rapidly increasing bottomhole pressure
caused by resistance to faster than design mud flow rates around the shoe and an apparent loss of
returns, as the cement fills the voids created during the initial free fall. An example of a field job showing pump and return rates is shown in Figure 3.12.29 If, for example, the low rate of returns after 2 hrs,
caused the operator to reduce the injection rate in an attempt to limit the apparent lossof cement,
the cement would not be in turbulent flow and the mud cake might not be cleaned off the formation.16

(Mahony & Barrios)

PAV

Figure3.12: The problem of free fall of a

heavier cement in a lighter mud
system. The upper schematic
shows the placement of the
16lblgal cement with the
lighter mud. The graph at left is
a model prediction with measured data from the field
(Beirute).

After the plug has been bumped, the waiting-on-cement time, WOC, begins and pressure is held until
cement has set. Pressure control is assisted by the float equipment. These devices are flapper or poppet valves near the bottom of the string that prevent the cement from returning to the casing. The oneway valves are of drillable material and are designed to stand the high velocity flow of large quantities
of abrasive cement without damaging the sealing mechanism. Examples of the float valve are shown
in Figure 3.13. If the float is at the end of the casing string, it is called float shoe. If it is placed a joint
or two off bottom, then it is called a float collar. The preferred location will depend upon the operator
but for reasons of cement contamination control, float collars are usually preferred. The float collar
results in a joint or two above the shoe being filled with the last cement pumped. This last cement may
be contaminated with residual mud scraped from the casing wall by the top plug. Use of both a float
collar and a float shoe are accepted practice in some areas. The dual floats are used as an extra barrier against pressure leak back.
After WOC, drill bit just smaller than the casing id is then run if the well is to be deepened. The hole is
drilled through the casing shoe and into the formation beneath this string. At this point, the casing
shoe is generally tested to insure that a good, leak-tight cement job has been obtained. If there are

3-13

Figure 3.13: Examples of floats and float locations from Smith (WE).
Note that the float collar is located one joint (or more)
above the end of the string.

leaks during this pressure test, the well is squeezed with cement until a pressure tight seal can be
obtained. Since the casing shoe is the weak spot for blowout control, this step is a necessity.
In summary, to properly place a good primary cement job requires several factors: selection of the
right cement blend, the conditioning of mud, the removal of mud cake, centralization and movement of
the pipe to insure full cement contact around the perimeter of the outside casing wall and use of
enough cement to isolate the full zone.
Cementing Calculations

The following calculations follow the formulas used in the cementing monograph.
Buoyant force on the casing by the fluid in the hole tries to float the casing. Hydrostatic pressure acts
against the effective area of the casing, causing the upward force. The pressure acts on the full area
of the closed end casing if the float is in place and holding or on the area created by do-di if the casing
is open ended. The weight of the casing string minus the upward buoyancy force gives the buoyed or
true weight of the casing string in the hole.
For 13-3/8 in., 61 Ib/ft, K-55 casing in a 17 in. hole, filled with 10 Ib/gal mud:
closed end area = x (do2/4) = 141 in.2
effective area = (1/4)x (do2-di2)= 17.5 in.2
hydrostatic at 4000 ft = 4000 ft (10 x 0.052 psi/ft = 2080 psi
hydrostatic effect on casing = 2080 psi x 17.5 in? = 36,400 Ib
casing string weight on air = 61 Ib/ft x 4000 ft = 244,000 Ib
The buoyed weight of the casing in mud divided by the outside area of the casing gives the pressure
needed to balance the string:

207,600 lb/141 in.2

3-14

1472 psi

Thus, a bottomhole kick or other pressure increase of over 1472 psi (additional 0.368 psilft or
7.1 Ib/gal) could start the casing moving upwards. At shallower depths, especially with large diameter
casing, the additional pressure to lift the buoyed weight can be 100 psi or less.
The pressure to land the top plug when displacing 16 Ib/gal cement with fresh water to 4000 ft
(assuming complete annulus fill with cement) is:
cement hydrostatic in annuls = 4000 ft x 16 Ib/gal x 0.052

.@

= 3328 psi

lb ft

water hydrostatic in casing = 4000 ft x 8.33 Ib/gal x 0.052

psi gal

lbft

= 1733 psi

pressure to land plug = 3328 - 1733 = 1595 psi

In wells where a1 the exposed formations will not support the full weight of the cement while fracturing,
the cement must be lightened or the zone must be protected by only filling the annulus with a partial
column of cement (staged cementing).
Assume the zone at 4000 ft (bottomhole) has a fracture gradient of 0.72 psi/ft. Calculate the height of
a 16 Ib/gal cement column that will be 200 psi below fracturing pressure:
bottomhole frac pressure = 4000 ft x 0.72 psi/ft = 2880 psi
allowable bottomhole pressure = 2880 psi - 200 psi = 2680 psi
cement gradient = 16 Ib/gal x 0.052 = 0.832 psi/ft
full column pressure = 4000 ft x 0.832 psi/ft = 3328 psi
If 16 Ib/gal cement is used, the maximum column height (within the allowable pressure) is:
column height = 2680 psV0.832 psi/ft = 3221 fl
If a full cement column is needed, the maximum cement density is:
maximum density = 2680 psi/4000 ft = 0.67 psi/ft or 12.9 lblgal
Cement densities are only part of the picture, the friction pressures developed by pumping the cement
past restrictions adds to the hydrostatistic pressure of the cement.
Balanced Plug Setting
Determining the height that cement will rise where it can equalize height requires use of a simple balanced plug formula.

H=- N
C+T
where

H = height of balanced cement column,

N = cubic ft of cement slurry pumped,

per linear ft of annulus,

T = ft3 per linear ft of tubing.
= ft3

3-15

Squeeze Cementing

Squeeze cementing forces a cement slurry behind the pipe to repair leaks or shut of fluid 10~s.~
Squeeze cementing is normally thought to be a repair step, but is also used to seal off depleted zones
or unwanted fluid production.
Smith2 documents eight major uses of squeeze cementing for repair and recovery control purposes:
1. To control high GORs. By squeezing the top section of the perfs, gas production can be made to
pass vertically through the top part of the formation matrix, slowing the gas production by the
contrast in vertical vs. horizontal permeabilities.

2. To control excessive water, squeezing lower perfs can delay water production. Only if an impenetrable barrier separates the oil and water or if vertical permeability is very low, will effective
water reduction be achieved.
3. Repairing casing leaks. Cement can be squeezed through holes in casing. This is best accomplished by very small particle cement.
4. To seal thief zones or lost-circulation zones. Cement slurry may penetrate natural fractures for

only a centimeter or two but may develop sufficient blockage to help control leakoff. The cement
slurry bridges on the face of the matrix. Sealing off natural fractures is often difficult.

5. To stop fluid migration from a separate zone. This is usually a block squeeze or channel repair
operation.

6. Isolation of zones. Selective shutoff of depleted or abnormally low or high pressure zones.
7. Repair of primary cement job. Filling voids or channels, and repair of liner tops are common.
8. Abandonment squeezes. Shutting off depleted reservoirs or protecting fresh water sands.

Squeeze cementing is separated into high pressure squeezing and low pressure ~ q u e e z i n g . ~ ~ ~ ~
High pressure squeezing involves fracturing the formation with cement until a required surface pressure is reached. The importance of high pressures at the end of the job, although popular with many
companies, is actually of little importance and should be well below 1 psi/ft.32333The high pressure
squeeze uses neat cement (no additives) with very high fluid loss. The best use of the technique is
usually to shutoff depleted zones and to seal perforation^.^^
The low pressure squeeze technique is probably more efficient in placing a controlled amount of
cement in a problem area of the well. With this technique, formation fracturing is completely avoided.
The pressure is achieved by pressuring-up on the cement and allowing the cement to filter out on the
formation creating a block in the annulus. Once the cement slurry has hardened or dehydrated to a
sufficient extent, no more fluid will be displaced. The excess cement that is still the drill pipe or the
annulus can be displaced from the well by opening the casing valve and flushing with a displacement
fluid. The advantages of the low pressure squeeze are less pressure exposure to tubing and casing
and special cementing tools, and a smaller quantity of cement.
For either of the squeeze cementing process, a relatively low water loss, strong cement is part of the
design. Most operations use nonretarded API Class A, G or H, which are suitable for squeeze conditions to 6,000 ft without additives. For deeper wells, Class G or H can be retarded to gain necessary
pumping time. In hotter wells (above 230F), additives should be considered at high temperature to
increase strength.

3-16

Although squeeze cementing is often used to help repair primary cement failures to protect the pipe, it
is possible to collapse the casing during squeeze cementing. If a packer is set immediately above the
zone to be squeezed and an open channel exists that links the backside of the casing above the
packer to the interval being squeezed Figure 3.14, then the outside of the casing above the packer
may be exposed to the full pressure of the cement squeeze. If the inside of the casing is not be loaded
or pressurized, casing failure can occur if the Ap is above pipe strength.

(Hodges, API, 1959)

Figure 3.14: An illustration of how cement squeezes below

a packer can result in casing collapse above
the packer. Some zone of communication is
required.

The thickening time and set time of cement used in squeeze operations are calculated in the same
manner as those used in primary cementing. Squeeze pressure does effect the dehydration of the
slurry, particularly across zones which are very permeable. Fluid loss additives may be included if the
slurry is designed to move any significant distance across a permeable formation. Normal dehydration
of a cement on a permeable section is severe enough to seal off the flow channel before complete displacement is accomplished.
Cement Squeeze Tools

A drillable or retrievable cement retainer is a modified packer that helps control the placement of
cement and protects other zones from pressure and excess cement. Retrievable tools can be set and
released several items and can be used for several squeeze repairs in one trip. Drillable tools are a
single use tool that stays in place and is drilled out (if needed) after the cement has set. The tools are
modified packers and are available in compression set and tension set models. Compression set models are normally used below 3000 ft where the weight of the string is adequate to completely engage
the slips.
Drillable cement tools are more restricted in setting and application than retrievables but offer more
control on the set cement. The drillable models are preferred where continued pressure must be maintained after squeezing.%
When squeezing formations that are naturally fractured, it is more important to fill the fractures rather
than buildup a filter cake.
Smith cites a two slurry system as successful in fractures: a highly accelerated slurry and a moderate-fluid-loss slurry. Accelerated slurries are pumped into the zones of least resistance and allowed to

3-17

take an initial set. After the first slurry has gelled, the moderate fluid loss slurry is forced into the narrower fractures. The first slurry used for this type of squeeze should take an initial set 10 to
15 minutes after placement.

Liner Cementing
Cementing of liners requires special equipment and techniques to obtain a seal in the close clearances found between the liner and the open hole or the casing string. For more information, the
reader is referred to a set of articles by Bowman and Sherer, published in World
47-54 Two
cementing techniques are use for liner cementing; a modified circulation job (looks much like a
cement squeeze) and a puddle cement technique. In the circulation/squeeze, Figure 3.1 5, the liner
and associated equipment is run on drill string with a liner running tool and a retrievable packer
assembly. After the base of the liner is squeezed, usually up to the shoe of the outer casing or slightly
above, the liner running tool is pulled out of the liner up to a point just above the liner top and the top
section of the liner is squeezed. After drillout of the remaining cement, a liner packer, may be run.

(Bowman & Sherrer)

Figure 3.1 5: Liner cementing sequence.

Cementing liners, especially deep liners at high pressures, is complicated since the liner is often isolated from the rest of the string by packers and close clearances. The result is that pressures are often
trapped behind the pipe. Pipe collapse and deformation are ~ o m m o n . Liner
~ ~ , cementing
~~
technology
is little different from full string technology except that pipe movement (including rotation) is done on
drill pipe40r43and use of plugs requires two part plugs. Liner tie back operations may require special
circulating guidelines because of the narrow clearance^.^^

3-18

Liner hanger clearances near the top will be critical in minimizing backpressure if the cement is circulated around the top of the liner in a complete circulation job. Close clearances created by a large liner
hanger can raise the backpressure and the equivalent circulation density. In some cases, this increase
in equivalent density is enough to fracture the well.
In a puddle job, the cement slurry is spotted by the drill pipe over the section in which the liner is to be
run. The volume calculation for the puddle of cement must consider hole volume and liner volume.
Undetected washouts in the hole can lead to lack of cement around the liner top. Although the procedure is much simpler than the circulation/squeeze technique, it is also often less effective in providing
a seal. The technique is used for short liner sections.
Frictional Pressure Dropin Pipe

The pressure drop of general slurries in pipe is given by:

APf

0.039 6, pv2f

where
dpf
L
p
v
f

= friction

loss, psi,

= length of pipe, ft,

= slurry density, Ib/gal,
= velocity, Wsec,
= frictional factor, dimensionless.

The frictional factor is

for general, nonviscous slurries in turbulent flow
f=-

0.0303
No1612

Re

for plug and laminar flow

Reynolds number, N R ~is,

where:
K = consistency index, Ib-secN, per ft2,
N = flow behavior index, dimensionless.

3-19

References
1. Smith, D. K.: Cementing, SPE Monograph, 1987.
2. Smith, R. S.: Internal Amoco Report on Cementing.
3. Keller, S.R., Crook, R. J., Haut, R. C., and Kuiakofsky, D. S.: Deviated Wellbore Cementing:
Part 1 - Problems, JPT, (Aug. 87), 955-960.
4. API Bulletin RP-lOB,
5. Smith, R. C., Calvert, D. G.: The Use of Sea Water in Well Cementing, J. Pet. Tech., (June
1975), 759-764.

6. Smith, R. C., Powers, C. A., Dobkins, T. A.: A New Ultralightweight Cement with Super
Strength, JPT, (Aug. 1980), 1438-44.
7. Harms, W. M., Ligenfelter, J. T.: Microspheres Cut Density of Cement Slurry Oil and Gas J.,
(Feb. 2, 1981), 59-66.
8. Davies, D. R., Hartog, J. J., Cobbett, J. S.: Foamed Cement- A Cement with Many Applications, SPE 9598, Middle East Oil Tech, Conf. Manama, Bahrain, March 9-12, 1981.
9. Harms, W. H.: Cementing of Fragile Formation Wells With Foamed Cement Slurries, JPT,
(June 1985), 1049-1057.
10. Benge, 0. G., Spangle, L. B.: Foamed Cement - Solving Old Problems with a New Technique,
SPE 11204, SPE Tech. Conf., New Orleans, Sept. 26-29, 1982.
11. Bannister, C. E.: Evaluation of Cement Fluid-Loss Behavior Under Dynamic Conditions, SPE
7592, Houston, Oct. 1-3, 1978.
12. Brice, J. W., Holmes, B. C.: Engineered Casing Cementing Programs Using Turbulent Flow
Techniques, J. Pet. Tech. (May 1964), 503-508.
13. Cheung, P. R., Beirute, R. M.: Gas Flow in Cements, SPE 11207, presented 57th Annual Tech.
Mtg., New Orleans, Sept. 26-29, 1982.
14. Bannister, C. E., Shuster, G. E., Woolridge, Jones, M. J.: Critical Design Parameters to Prevent
Gas Invasion During Cementing Operations, SPE 11982, presented Ann. Tech. Mtg., San Francisco, Oct. 5-8, 1983.
15. Cheung, P. R., Myrick, B. D.: Field Evaluation of an Impermeable Cement System for Controlling Gas Migration, SPE 13045, presented Ann. Tech. Mtg., Houston, Sept. 16-19, 1984.
16. Smith, R. C.: Successful Primary Cementing Can Be a Reality, J. Pet. Tech., (November 1984),
1851-1858.
17. Sauer, C. W.: Mud Displacement During Cementing: A State of the Art, JPT., (Sept. 1987),
1091-1101.
18. Smirk, D. E., Kundert, D. P., Vacca, H. L.: Application of Primary Cementing Principles, Rocky
Mountains and Texas, SPE 16208, Prod. Operat. Symposium, Okla. City, March 8-1 0, 1987.

3-20

19. McLean, R. H., Manrey, C. W., and Whittaker, W. W.: Displacement Mechanics in Primary
Cementing, J. Pet. Tech. (February 1967) 251-260.
20. Parker, P. N., Ladd, B. J., Ross, W. M., and Wahl, W. W.: An Evaluation of a Primary Cementing
Technique Using Low Displacement Rates, SPE 123440th Annual Meeting, Denver, October 36, 1965.
21. Clark, C. R., Carter, L. G.: Mud Displacement with Cement Slurries, J. Pet. Tech. (July 1973),
775-782.
22. Garcia, J. A.: Rotating Liner Hanger Helps Solve Cementing Problems, Pet. Eng. Int. (September 1985) 38-48.
23. Bowman, G. R., Sherer, B.: How to Run and Cement Liners, World Oil (March 1988), 38-46.
24. Crook, R. J., Keller, S.R., and Wilson, M. A.: Deviated Wellbore Cementing: Part 2 - Solutions,
JPT, (Aug 87), 961-966.
25. Reiley, R. H., Black, J. W., Stagg, T. O., Walter, D. A., and Atol, G. R.: Cementing of Liners in
Horizontal and High-Angle Wells at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, SPE 16682, 62nd Annual Meeting,
Dallas, September 27-30, 1987.
26. Wilson, M. A., Sabins, F. L.: A Laboratory Investigation of Cementing Horizontal Wells, SPE
16928, 62nd Annual Meeting, Dallas, September 27-30, 1987.
27. Lee, H. K., Smith, R. C., Tighe, R. E.: Optimal Spacing for Casing Centralizers, SPE Drilling
Engineering (April 1986), 122-130.
28. API Specification 1OD, Casing Centralizers, Feb. 17, 1986, 3rd Ed.
29. Beirute, R. M.: The Phenomenon of Free Fall During Primary Cementing, SPE 13045, Ann.
Tech. Conf., Houston, Sept. 16-19, 1984.
30. Howard, G. C., Fast, C. R.: Squeeze Cementing Operations, Trans., AIME (1950) 189, 53-64.
31. Baret, J. R.: Why Cement Fluid Loss Additives Are Necessary, Paper SPE 17630 presented at
the SPE International Meeting, Tianjin, China, November 1-4, 1988.
32. Patton, L. Douglas: Squeeze Cementing Made Easy, Petroleum Engineer International (October 1987), 46-52.
33. Rike, J. L.: Obtaining Successful Squeeze - Cementing Results, Paper SPE 4608, presented at
the fall meeting, Las Vegas, September 30-October 3, 1973.
34. Goolsby, J. L.: A Proven Squeeze-Cementing Technique in a Dolomite Reservoir, reprinted
from Journal of Petroleum Technology (October 1969), 1341-1346.
35. Shryock, S.H. and Slagle, K. A.: Problems Related to Squeeze Cementing, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Vol 20, August 1968), 801-807.
36. Hodges, J. W.: Squeeze Cementing Methods and Materials, SPE Squeeze Symposium, Lubbock, March 15, 1918.

3-21

37. Carter, L. G.; Harris, F. N. and Smith, D. K.: Remedial Cementing of Plugged Perforations,
Paper SPE 759 presented at the California Regional Meeting, Santa Barbara, October 23-25,
1963.
38. Edwards, A. G.: Squeeze Tools, Squeeze Cementing Symposium, Lubbock, March 5, 1981.
39. Brouse, M.
40. Gust, D. A., McDonald, R. R.: Rotation of a Long Reach Liner in a Shallow Long-Reach Well, J.
Pet. Tech., (April 1989),401 -404.
41. Harms, W. M., and J. S. Febus, Cementing of Fragile-Formation Wells With Foamed Cement
Slurries, Journal of Petroleum Technology (June 1985),1049-1057.
42. Harms, Weldon M., and David L. Sutton, Ultra-Density Cementing Operations, Journal of
Petroleum Technology (January 1983),61-69.
43. Lindsey, H. E., Rotate Liners for a Successful Cement Job, World Oil (October 1986),39-43.
44. Lindsey, H. Ed, Techniques for Liner Tie-Back Cementing, Production Engineering, 1978,3739.
45. Durham, Kenneth S.,How to Prevent Deep-well Liner Failure (Part l), World Oil (October
1987),46-50.
46. Durham, Kenneth S.,How to Prevent Deep-well Liner Failure (Part 2),World Oil (November
1 987),47-49.
47. Bowman, Glenn R., and Bill Sherer, How to Run and Cement Liners (Part l),World Oil (March
1988),38-46.
48. Bowman, Glenn R., and Bill Sherer, How to Run and Cement Liners (Part 3),World Oil (June
1 988),55-58.
49. Bowman, Glenn R., and Bill Sherer, How to Run and Cement Liners (Part 4),World Oil (July
1 988),84-88.
50. Bowman, Glenn R., and Bill Sherer, How to Run and Cement Liners (Part 5),World Oil (September 1 988),65-70.

51. Bowman, Glenn R., and Bill Sherer, How to Run and Cement Liners (Part 6),World Oil (October 1988),69-72.
52. Bowman, Glenn R., and Bill Sherer, How to Run and Cement Liners (Part 7),World Oil
(November 1988),75-79.
53. Bowman, Glenn R., and Bill Sherer, How to Run and Cement Liners (Part 8),World Oil
(December 1988),71-74.
54. Bowman, Glenn R., and Bill Sherer, How to Run and Cement Liners (Part 9),World Oil (January 1989),44-48.
55. Goodwin, Joe, Centralizer Placement in Deviated Holes, Drilling (April 1985),54-57.

3-22

56. Parcevaux, Philippe, Guides Emerge for Cementing Horizontal Strings, Oil & Gas Journal,
October 19, 1987, 35-41.
57. Smith, R. C., R. M. Beirute, and G. B. Holman, Improved Method of Setting Successful Cement
Plugs, Journal of Petroleum Technology (November 1984), 1897-1904.
58. Rike, J. L., and Erik Rike, Squeeze Cementing: State of the Art,Journal of Petroleum Technology (January 1982), 37-45.
59. Sauer, C. W., and W. R. Landrum, Cementing - A Systematic Approach, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (December 1985), 2184-2196.
60. Hartog, J. J., D. R. Davies, and R. B. Stewart, An Integrated Approach for Successful Primary
Cementations, Journal of Petroleum Technology (September 1983), 1600-1610.
61. Mahony, Bernard J., and John R. Barrios: Cementing Liners Through Deep, High Pressure
Zones, Engineering Essentials of Mud Drilling, HBJ Publishers, 1962.
62. Smith, R. C., R. M. Beirute, and G. B. Holman, Postanalysis of Abnormal Cementing Jobs with a
Cementing Simulator, SPE Production Engineering (August 1987), 157-164.

Cementing: Review Questions

1. Calculate the buoyant weight of 9-5/8 in., 47 Ib/ft, N-80 casing when 16.4 Ib/gal cement just
reaches the shoe and there is a 8.33 Ib/gal surfactant water flush in the annulus.

2. Derive a formula for the required density of a displacing flush that will give a neutral density with
a flush PO.
3. For a well with a fracture gradient of 0.6 psi/ft at 7000 ft, calculate the maximum cement height
above the zone when using 16.4 lblgal cement (use a maximum bottomhole pressure of 200 psi
below frac pressure).
4. For the example in #3, calculate the cement density that will allow a full cement column to surface (use a maximum bottomhole pressure of 200 psi below frac pressure).

3-23

Chapter 45

Packer Selection and Tubing Forces

Packers create a seal between the annulus and tubing. They may also serve as anchors and/or hangers for tubing strings. Although the concept of a packer is simple, the variety in devices is extensive. A
packer may be described by its setting mechanism; hydraulic or mechanical, by its running mechanism; wireline or tubing, by its permeance; permanent or retrievable, by its function or by some other
description. Its purpose is clear, it is the main downhole wellbore pressure control in many wells. Slips
anchor the packer in place in the casing, a necessity where differential pressures exceed several
thousand psi. Mechanical set packers set their slips by pushing a wedge- or cone-shaped piece
against a set of tapered slips (hardened steel gripping surfaces) to drive the slips out and into the casing wall. Mechanical energy is supplied by tubing rotation, tension, or compression. Hydraulic set
packers set slips by fluid pressure, supplied by liquid or gas generating explosive charge. The slips
are made on pistons that move out laterally for the few millimeters needed. The pistons may be
designed to retract when pressure is released or remain out in some permanent installations. Packer
slips are usually designed to hold in one direction, acting as an anchor to resist upward movement or
as a hanger to resist downward movement. By using two sets of opposing slips, the packer can be
anchored from either direction. An accompanying packing element (an elastomer, e.g., synthetic rubber) is expanded by the slip setting action tubing or pressure which expands the seals against the wall
of the pipe and generates a pressure tight seal.
The purposes of packers are:
1. Casing protection from pressure or fluids in the tubing
2. Separation of zones

3. Subsurface pressure and fluid control for safety

4. Artificial lift support equipment

Picking the right packer requires knowledge of the operational and completion requirements. This puts
an early design load on completions/operational engineers: get it right or risk an early workover to
replace a poorly selected packer.
Packers can be selected with aid of a decision tree planner such as shown in Figure 4.1. If a fully open
wellbore is not required, the choice will most often be a permanent packer. As the name implies, the
permanent packer is a permanent feature of the well. Removal requires milling of the slips.
Production Packers

A gas well completion with a packer can often eliminate problems of produced liquid heading and
loading if a tail pipe is run below the perforations. For some wells, including many older wells with
increasing water cut and decreasing flowing tubing pressure and rate, smaller tubing or velocity
strings can assist in keeping the gas velocity high enough to lift the liquids?
Because the packer seals the tubing string, it must have compatibility with string size and string movement. The packer must be metallurgically compatible with produced fluids and the metal in the tubing
string. Elastomers must be stable at operating temperatures, pressures and in produced fluids and
completion or stimulation fluids.
Special Equipment

When large pressure differentials are expected in any tool that needs to be released, a pressure
equalizing valve must be incorporated to keep the pressure from driving packer and tubing up (or

4-1

Isapnckerand

for Isolation?

ard metal
selection

(modified from Peden)

Figure 4.1:

A packer selection criteria flow sheet.

down) the well. Most valves work with the first tubing movement; opening a vent between upper and
lower sections before the continued tubing movement releases the anchoring slips.
When the tubing must be routinely pulled, a plug profile in the packer and an ON/OFF tool eliminates
killing the
A wireline plug may be set in the profile in the packer to shut in the well and the tubing
may be pulled while the retrievable packer remains in place with the well shut in. The well is effectively
controlled by the packer and plug for repair or replacement of the tubing, without needing to kill the
well.
Various types of packers are schematically illustrated in Figure 4.2. The discussion that follows
describes several of the features3-
Solid head retrievable tension packers are used when the pressure below the packer is greater than
the annulus pressure above the packer. This commonly occurs in an injection well or during low pressure treating. Tension packers are preferred in injection wells so that the slips are in the annulus:
away from the corrosive effects of the injected fluid. Caution must be exercised when setting tension
packers on small diameter tubing in a well with large diameter casing. In some cases, such as 23/8 in. tubing in 7 in., casing the tension needed to set the packer may exceed the tensile strength of
the tubing.8 When a force is applied to the tubing, it will respond by stretching. Figure 4.3 can be used
to estimate stretch on tubing for an applied force.
Solid head retrievable compression packers are used when pressure above the packer is greater than
the pressure below the packer. This normally occurs in a producing well with a full annulus of packer

4-2

VUVE
IIUmIcR
I I P

(from Guiberson)

Examples of various packers that might be used in a normal

completion.

Figure 4.2:

VALVE

au?
WMU
W
U
C

SEALS

RIBEER
SLIP

#
fluid. The compression set packers are the easiest to unseat and pull. Both compression set and tension set packers can be affected by tubing length changes caused by pressure fluctuations and temperature changes. Probably the most popular retrievable packers use a J-latch set with tubing rotation
and slack off as the setting forces. When the tubing is latched in or otherwise solidly connected, careful consideration must be given to temperature effects to avoid cork screwing and buckling the tubing.
Retrievable packers have a wide range of applications but are not used in deviated, thermal, or deep
wells where tubing movement may be a severe problem.
Retrievable hydraulic set packers are set by applying hydraulic pressure in the tubing. The pressure
expands the elements and sets the slips against the wall of the casing. This packer may be removable
and is usually released by pulling on the tubing which shears pins or opens a valve within the packer
and releases the seals and slips. Hydraulic packers are very common in dual completions, especially
in deviated wells.

Dressing Packers
Equipping a packer for the characteristics of an individual well is called dressing a packer. Most
packers will work in a range of casing weights of a particular size casing.

Allowing Tubing Movement

Polished seal bore packers are usually permanent packers set at a predetermined depth by either
wireline or tubing. A seal assembly attached to the bottom of the tubing string is stung into the packer
polish bore receptacle to achieve sealing. In wells with a severe amount of tubing movement, a long
seal assembly and a polished seal bore packer are used to establish a slip joint to let the tubing
expand and contract as needed.

4-3

Effects of Temperature

Any well component will react to a change in temperature by a volume or reaction change. The components affected by temperature include tubulars, produced fluids, cements, acids, and corrosion
properties. The changes in these fluids and materials, especially when the changes are unexpected,
may lead to failures in components of the well. In most wells, a value for bottomhole temperature,
BHT, is usually available from logging runs. As with most remotely sensed values, the BHT should be
checked with other methods to make sure the value is correct. An incorrect BHT may lead to expensive problems with an otherwise correctly designed completion.
As a check on BHT, use the following formula. Average temperature gradient is 1.6"Fper every 100 ft
of true vertical depth, d. The formula is BHT = T, + (0.1) (U) (1.6),where T, = average surface temperature OF. Gradients vary with geothermal activity. Substitute the local gradient for the 1.6 value. With
the correct gradient values for individual areas, bottomhole temperature may vary by a factor of 2 for
wells of the same depth but in different thermal activity areas.

Changes in temperature are at least as important as the total temperature. The first change in temperature is experienced as the well warms up from a circulating BHT to the static BHT. Whenever the well
is circulated with a cooler fluid, BHT decreases. The rate of warming after circulation is stopped,
depends on the amount of temperature differential between the static and circulating BHT and the volume of circulation that has occurred. Wells that have experienced long-term injection or circulation of
cool fluids will reach static BHT much slower than wells in which the injection or circulation is limited.
In general, the following statements describe how temperature affects the tubing or casing in a wek7

1. The tubing temperature is assumed to be the same as the injected fluid if no circulation is
involved. If circulation occurs, the temperature of the top few tubing joints will be the same as the
injected fluid, but the "temperature front" will only slowly work down. The analogy of heat transfer
in a circulating well is that of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger. The fluid rising in the annulus
exchanges heat with the injected fluid.
2. In injection without circulation, or in the case of produced fluids, assume the entire tubing string
is the same temperature.
3. The temperature of an unheated injected fluid is assumed to be the same as the ambient air temperature in an onshore well. In offshore wells, injection of sea water from a deeply placed intake
or injection of any fluid into a deep water well where the riser is not appreciably insulated can
drastically lower the temperature. The coldest point in these systems is the mud line ternperature.

4. In a dual packer situation, treat each string as a separate calculation. The calculations on dual
strings are made with the bottom string first, working up to the top.

The assumptions that all the tubing be considered as the same temperature is a simplifying move. It is
a "worst possible case" that will result in a more conservative design (higher than needed safety factor). Where temperature alone affects the pipe, steel expands or contracts 0.0000828" per ft per O F
gained or lost
The extremes of temperature change in well completion and producing operations is usually seen in
completions that are exposed to thermal stimulation or cyclic thermal production (or steam injection).
The effect of tubing and casing length changes in the wells that are thermally cycled is covered in the
chapter on thermal completions. Other severe cases of temperature cycling occur in a CO2-flood environment. In both injection and production wells, CO2 expansion may significantly reduce temperature.

4-4

Deep Completions

Deep well operations pose special problems. In most deep well operations, the use of retrievable
packers is extremely limited. Most operators choose to use a permanent packer for reasons of tubing
movement (with a PBR) and with temperature and pressure limitations on some retrievables.11f2

IsolatesCasing AboveLiner
From Producing Fluids

Figure 4.4:

No

No

No

NIA

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

A Comparison of features and limitations of several packer types for deep completions.
The descriptions refer to the packers listed in Figures 4.5 to 4.13.

4-5

Figure4.5:

The simplest method of allowing tubing movement. A permanent packer with internal
polished bore receptacle and
seals on tubing.

Figure4.6:

A seal bore or polished bore

added to the packer to give
extra sealing and protection
against corrosive fluids.

I 'I

(left) An alternative to
a packer i s a liner top
receptacle and seal
assernbly.
Figure 4.8:

4-6

(right) The same completion as in 5.7

except that the liner
is cemented in place.
(no liner hanger).

Figure4.9:

Liner top receptacle and permanent packer sharing common seals on tubing.

Figure 4.10: Seal bore extension below

packer and separate liner top
recept.

W B

Figure 4.11:

4-7

Packer with extra long seal

receptacle to allow for tubing
movement in extreme operating conditions.

Figure 4.12:

Polished bore receptacle

mounted on top of the
packer.

Figure 4.13: Combination of a liner top

receptacle (below) and a polished bore receptacle (above)
on top of the permanent
packer. This isolates liner
movement from tubing movement.

Seal Considerations
Successful seal selection involves specifying a seal that will operate at the production and treating
conditions. The seal bore assembly may range from 1 to 3 ft in cool operations to over 30 ft in extreme
cases of temperature ~ y c l i n g . Seal
~ materials such as those in Figure 4.15 are common in the industry. There are no universal elastomers (polymer, plastic, rubber, etc.) that are suitable for all uses.
Seals must be selected on the basis of cost, thermal environment and chemical resistance. Seals may
deteriorate by swelling, gas permeation, softening, hardening, nibbling under pressures, or failure of
the internal bonding system that holds the elastomer compound together.21
Inserting the seal assembly on the tubing into the polished bore receptacle, is referred to as stab-in. It
is the first and often the most severe task that a seal system must undergo.13 Damage caused by running may be overcome with a protective sleeve around the seals. Metal spacers between the seals are
used to decrease damage from friction during ~ t a b - i n . ~

4-8

Seal Material

1 = satisfactory2 = fair (OKfor static seal)

Figure 4.14: Chemical Resistance of Several Seal Compounds

Seal Problems

The force to pull out of a seal assembly may often be more than expected due to normal seal friction,
pressures above and below the seal, areas on which the pressure can act, solids covering the seal
area, and seal problems such as seal deteriorization that will cause sticking.
The general force balance to unseat a seal in good condition is:

where
F
W
Pa
A,
Pb
Ab
C

= upward force,

= mass of the string,

= pressure above seals,
= area on which Pa is exerted,
= pressure below seals,
= area on which Pb is exerted,
= the seal friction for the mechanism.

See Figures 4.1 8 and 4.1 9 for details on areas.

Tubing and Packer Forces

Forces on the packer may come from fluid pressure experienced during production and from packer
fluid or other source of annulus pressure. In all these calculations, it must be remembered that all
the changes of pressure and temperature are changes from some original or starting point
condition.
The are four classifications of tubing movement caused by pressure or temperat~re.~-*~

4-9

All the movements but buckling can be expressed as a force, and each force is a straight line function
of pressure or temperature differential.

1. Temperature Tubing length changes with temperature change, expanding with a temperature
rise and contracting with a decrease in temperature. The change in length is:

AL,

CLAt

where:
AL4

= change in length, inches

C
L
At

= coefficient of expansion, for steel

C = 6.9 x 1OW6/OF

= length of tubing, inches

= average temperature change, O F from initial.

The force, f 4 , caused by temperature change on tubing latched in place is:

F,

207 Ata A,

where:
F4
Ata

= temperature induced force, Ib

= change in average temperature of tubing,

O F

= cross-section area of tubing, sq. in.

A,
2. Piston Effect The internal and external tubing pressures at the packer act on the differential
area created by the tubing and packer mandrel to change the tubing length.

AL1

-EA,

[ ( A p - AiIAPi- ( A p - A o ) A P o ]

(4.3)

where:

= change in tubing length, in.

= length of tubing string, in.

= modulus of elasticity for steel = 3 x 1 O7 psi

A,

= cross-sectional area of tubing, in.2

Ap
Ai
Ao

= area of packer bore (stinger), in.2

AL,

= area of tubing id, in?

= area of tubing od, in.*

A P i = change in pressure inside tubing at packer, psi
A P o = change in pressure in annulus at packer, psi

When the tubing is latched in place, the force created by the piston effect is:

4-10

Fl

= [ (Ap-Ai)APi-

(Ap-Ao)APo]
(4.4)

3. Ballooning - The ballooning effect is the result of pressure changes inside and outside the tubing. It may be expressed by:

AL3

2L APia - R2 APoa
-[108
R2- 1
1

In latched tubing, the force, F3, generated is:

where:
F3
R

= ballooning force, Ibs

= ratio of tubing OD to ID
= tubing length in inches
APia = change in average tubing pressure, psi

Ai

= inside area of tubing, sq. in.

APoa = change in average annulus pressure, psi

A,

= outside area of tbg., sq. in.

The ( A P j d j ) term is the shortening effect of ballooning and the (AP,,tA,) term represents a force
that tries to lengthen the tubing.

4. Buckling buckling of the tubing can be caused or increased by a variety of conditions. Some of
these are: (1) upward acting packer forces, (2) higher pressure inside the tubing than outside,
(3) increased casing diameter to tubing diameter ratios, (4) lower density fluid in the tubing than

in the annulus, and ( 5 ) larger packer bores.

Buckling of the tubing above a packer permitting free motion will shorten the tubing. Such buckling is a result of the differential between the pressure inside the tubing and that outside the tubing acting on the full cross-sectional area of the packer bore at the tubing seal. Where the
packer limits tubing motion, the tubing weight set on the packer must also be considered.
Calculation of the length change from buckling forces are shown in the following formula.
= -

AL2

r2AP ( APi- A PO)

8 El ( ws + wi- wo)
(4.7)

where:
A 4

= contraction of tubing, in.

r
Ap

= (casing ID -tubing OD) + 2, in.

= area of stinger OD (packer bore), sq. in.

4-11

= Modulus of elasticity for steel (30 x 1O6 psi)

E
APi

= change in pressure in TBG. @ packer (affected by applied surface pressure and

change in fluid density in TBG.), psi
APo = change in pressure in annulus @ packer (affected by applied surface pressure and
change in fluid density in CSG.), psi
= moment of inertia of TBG. around its axis = d64 (OD4 - ID4)
I
w,
= weight of TBG./in. in air (1/12 of nominal weighvft)
Wj
= weight of fluid inside one inch length of TBG. (fluid density x area of TBG. ID)
w,
= weight of annular fluid displaced by one inch length of tubing (density of CSG. fluid
times area of TBG. OD)
The tubing constants for W, + Wj+ W, are shown in Figure 4.1 6. Since the values for I, w,, Wj,
and w,, for common size tubing and mud weights will become constants, the term:

;:E

2.000
2-1/16
2-318
2-7/8
3-112

2.40
2.90
3.40
3.40

3.142
3.341

2.190
2.405

4.70
6.50
9.20

4.430
6.492
9.632

3.126
4.880
7.031

1.304
1.012
2.590

.428

1.393
1.434
1.389

.704
1.611
3.885

1.417
1.307
1.368

w,+ w,. w,
Tubing OD
(Inches)

+-t

1.660
1.go0

Welght
(lbslln.)

w, w,

Wland WO
(lbdln.)

200

W\

242

WO

52.3

55

.065

.062
.086

.m
.OS

.073
.101

2-318

w, 9.392

,095
.134

.142
.196

213
291

Figure 4.16: Tubing Constants and Values of A, A,, A, 1, and (W,

tions

+ W,

- WO)for Use in Buckling Calcula-

r2Ap2
8 E / ( Ws+ Wi- WO)
will become a constant for any particular completion. Once the constant is calculated, a curve
can be plotted for varying (APi- AP,). There is no buckling movement caused by differential
pressure when annulus pressure is greater than the tubing pressure; the tubing will have buck-

4-12

ling movement caused by differential pressure only when tubing pressure is greater than annulus pressure at the packer.''v20

Length or Force Changes?

Whether tubing length change or force change calculations are needed depends on how the tubing is
attached to the packer.vb
1. If there is no packer and the tubing is freely suspended (not touching the bottom of the well), all

effects produce a length change.

2. If the tubing is landed on the packer, it is restrained from moving downward. Positive length
changes cannot occur and are translated to force. Tubing shortening can occur.
3. If the tubing is latched into the packer, no movement can occur in either direction and all effects
are converted to forces.
4. If the tubing is stung through the packer, all effects will be length changes unless the stop at the
top of the seal assembly contacts the packer. If the tubing elongates enough to engage the stop,
the movement will then be converted to force.
5. If the tubing is set in tension or compression, the effects of pressure or temperature induced
force changes are added or subtracted from the force in place before the change. Sometimes
these changes are enough to unseat the packer.

Example: A well is completed with a PBR packer set at 9300 ft. and uses, 4-1/2 in., 12.6 Iblft, N-80
tubing. The tubing weight (compression) on the shoulder of the PBR is 20,000 Ib, at flowing conditions of bottom hole flowing pressure of 1700 psi, and a surface pressure of 250 psi. The average
producing tubing temperature is 250" F. The average tubing injection temperature is 75F. Use fracture pressures calculated in problem 2. What seal assembly length is needed to keep from pulling out
of the PBR during a fracture stimulation? Assume that the seal assembly needs to be 1 ft longer than
the length change from ballooning and temperature change. Consider both temperature and ballooning forces (ignore buckling and piston force). Seal assembly OD and ID are same as 4.5 in. tubing
(4.5 in. and 3.958 in. respectively).
Solution:
First, account for the 20,000Ib force, DF , with temperature change =>
AF = 207 A, At
A, = cross sectional area of tubing wall, in2
At = change in average tubing temperature, OF
A, = n/4 (4.52 - 3.9582) = 3.6 in2
At = [20,000/ ((3.6)(207))l= 36.8 OF (this is the temperature change (cooling) in the tubing that is
required to remove the 20,000 psi of force load applied by the tubing at the packer. Remaining temperature is (250 - 75)- 26.8 = 148.2"F.
Now, what length change will be produced with a temperature change (cooling) of 148.2OF?
AL = LCAt
L = length, inches
C = coefficient of thermal expansion, 6.9 x 1 0-6
At = change in average tubing temperature, OF

4-13

AL = (9300 x 12) (6.9 x 10-6) (148.2) = 114.24 inches = 9.51 ft

Ballooning Induced Pipe Length Movement
AL

(-2L$E) [(APia-R2APoa)/(R2-1)]

E = modulus of elasticity, 30 x 106

L = length, inches
y = Poissons ratio, 0.3 for steel
R = ratio of tubing OD to ID
APia = change in average tubing pressure, psi
APoa = change in average annulus pressure, psi
AL = change in tubing length, in
APia = ?
tubing pressure before = (1700 + 250)/2 = 975 psi
tubing pressure after = (7836 + 4423)/2 = 6130 psi
(the 7836 psi = BH frac pressure D hydrostatic back to packer, or
= [9600 ft x 0.83 psi/ft] D [(9600 - 9300) ft x 8.5 x 0.0521 = 7836 psi.
(the 4423 psi way surface pressure during fracturing).
APia = (6130 - 975) = 5155 psi
R = 433.958 = 1.1 37, R2 = 1.293
AL = (-2L$E) [(APia-R2APoa)/(R2-1)]
AL = (-2 (9300) (12) (0.3) / (30 X 106) ) [((5155 A ((1.293) (0))) / (1.293-l)]
AL = (-(0.002232)) (5155 / 0.293) = 39.27 inches = 3.27 ft
The total length change = 9.51

+ 3.27

= 12.78 ft

The stinger needs to be at least 12.8 + 1 ft = 13.8 ft long to keep the tubing from pulling out of the
packer during the fracture stimulation. A greater safety margin than 1 foot is common.
Setting the Packer

Successful packer setting depends on having a clean set point in the casing. Before a packer is set, a
casing scraper, Figure 4.1 7, is run to remove mud, scale, cement, or corrosion debris and mill scale.
Chances of successfully setting the packer go up sharply when a casing scraper is run. Some personnel resist running a scraper because of creating debris that can go to the perforated interval and
cause formation damage.

..

-----aa(OM scraper, Composite Cat.)

Figure 4.17: An example of a casing scraper. They are run prior to setting a packer
to clean the casing set point.

The effect of pressure in the annulus and in the tubing on the packer depends on the tubing/packer
configuration. When the tubing id is larger than the bore of the packer, Figure 4.1 8, the annulus pres-

4-14

sure pushes up and the tubing pressure pushes down. When the tubing id is smaller than the packer
bore, Figure 4.19, the annulus pressure pushes down and the tubing pressure pushes up. The effect
of pressure in this example is a piston effect.

Figure 4.18:

When the tubing id is larger than the bore of the

packer, the annulus pressure pushes up and the tubing
pressure pushes down.

Figure4.19: When the tubing id is smaller than the

packer bore, the net force may be
upward for equal pressures of PO and
pi.

4-15

In a sting through completion with a very short seal assembly or in a latch in completion, it is necessary to know how much weight to set off on the packer. Assuming the tubing id is smaller than the
packer bore, the needed weight would be the product of the expected operating pressure times the
difference in area between the tubing id and the packer bore.21
Packers are always tested for seal after setting. If the test pressure is too high, the packer can unseat
and move. In a tension set packer, for example, the maximum annulus pressure for test can be calculated as follows.21
An injection well is equipped with a tension set, hook wall packer. The tubulars are 7 in., 23 Ib/ft, N-80,
(id = 6.366 in., Ai = 31.8 in.2) casing and the tubing is 2-7/8in., 6.5 Ib/ft, C-75 (id = 2.041 in., Ai =
6.5 in.2) tubing. The packer is set with 18,000psi Ib tension with the annulus filled with treated water
(density = 8.4 Ib/ft). The annulus pressure that can be applied before the packer releases is: (Remember that fluid pressures must account for the hydrostatic gradient.)

P=

18,000 lb
((31.8-6.5) inch)2

739psi

In the surface pressure test, pressure up to 739 psi could be applied before the packer would unseat
and move.
Combined Forces

The combination of temperature and pressure effects on the length of the tubing produces a net
change. The values from the previous four calculations are added to give a net movement or force.
The stresses produced by pressure on the packer itself are also important and will determine if weight
set or tension packers will become unseated under particular operating conditions. The pressure,
either annulus or well pressure below the packer act on the exposed areas of the packer. The method
of calculations of the packer forces is to sum the forces; upward acting forces are negative. There are
three forces that must be considered - (1)tubing weight or tension, (2) annular pressure force and
(3)the pressure acting on the bottom of the packer. The annular pressure force is:

where:
FpA = Annular force exerted by the pressure at bottomhole, Ibs
Aa

= Area of inside of casing, in.2

ATO = Area of tubing od, in.2

PAB = Annular bottomhole pressure, psi
The force pressure underneath the packer is:

(4.1 0)
where:

4-16

FPT = Force beneath the packer exerted by fluid in casing, Ib

Ac/

= Area of inside of casing, in2

AT, = Area of inside of tubing, in2

PTB = Pressure from fluids in casing below packer, psi
The piston force, previously described, is the net effect of the forces trying to push the seal into or out
of the packer.

Special Packers
There are a number of packers that are made for special applications. Coiled tubing packers are available that will pass through 3-1/2 in. tubing and packoff in 7 in. casing.22 Inflatable packers are made
that can be filled with cement for permanent repairs under partially collapsed casing, Figure 4.20.
These packers are also used to packoff in openhole. Many packers are made of drillable materials
that can be removed easier than the permanent packers that must be milled.23 This type of packer
includes many of the cement retainers and squeeze tools.

- Liner

- Collapsed Casing

Figure 4.20:

Inflatable packer shown in a

cased hole section below a
partially collapsed section.

Tubing Stretch and Compression

When packers are set by tension or weight of tubing, some deformation of the tubing is to be
expected. Pulling force to set a tension set packer may stretch the tubing several feet depending on
amount of pull and size of tubing. Figure 4.3 can be used to estimate the ~ t r e t c h Compression
.~
set
packers can result in tubing buckling and some steel compression. This accounts for a small amount
of length and reduces the amount of weight that is set off on the packer.

Problems
A 10,000 ft well with 7 in. casing has a permanent packer set at 9300 ft. A seal bore assembly with 8 ft
of seals on the end of a 3-1/2 in. tubing string is stabbed into the packer. Four ft of seals extend into

4-17

the packer at constant producing conditions. BHT = 185F. BHP = 4600 psi. Production is 1000 bpd
with a 30% water cut. API gravity = 32. The flowing bottom hole pressure is 4400 psi, shut in BHP is
5100 psi and the frac gradient is 0.7 psi/ft. Packer seal bore is 3.7 in. Tubing is 10.3 Ib/ft, with id =
2.922 in. and seal od = 3.6 in. The well is shut in for 24 hours and then fractured with 50,000 gal of
water based frac fluid. Surface temperature is 85F.
1. What effect will the temperature change produce on the tubing?
2. What will be the piston effect?
3. What will be the buckling effect?
4. What will be the ballooning effect?
5. Will the tubing unseat from the packer during the job?

References
1. Buzarde, L. E., Kaster, R. L., Bell, W. T., DePriester, C. L.: Production Operations Course 1 Well Completions, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Lecture notes for a video course, 1972.
2. Wesson, H. R. Jr., Shursen, J. L.: Coiled Tubing Velocity Strings Keep Wells Unloaded, World
Oil, (July 1989), pp. 56-60.
: Pick the Right Production Packer, Pet. Eng. Int. (September 1987), pp. 54,57, and

3.
58.

4. Patton, L. D., Abbott, W. A.: Well Completion and Workovers -Tubing and Packer Systems, Pet.
Eng, Int., (May 1981), pp. 137-144.
5. Smart, E. E. Sherwood, J. H.: Special Jobs: Workover Packer Selection, Oil Patch,
(March/April 1981)
6. Smart, E. E.: How to Select the Right Packer for the Job, Pet. Eng. Intl., (July 1978)
7. Packer Completion Techniques, Guiberson Publication.
8. Conversation with Jerry Bowen, Amoco, Sept. 1, 1989
9. OBrian, T. B. Webster, K. B.: Deep Duals Simplified SPE 3904, 1972.
10. Holliday, G. H.,: Calculation of Allowable Maximum Casing Temperature to Prevent Tension
Failures in Thermal Wells, ASME Pet. Mech. Eng. Conf., Tulsa, Sept. 21-25, 1969.
11. Moseley, N. F.: Deep Well Completion Methods, Production Operations, Pet. Eng. Int. Pub.,
pp. 48-50, 1978.
12. Moseley, N. F.: Graphic Solutions to Tubing Movement in Deep Wells, Prod. Operations, Pet.
Eng. Int. Pub., pp. 31-35, 1978. Rubbo, R. P.: What to Consider When Designing Downhole
Seals, World Oil, (June 1987), pp. 78-83.
13. Lubinski, A., Althouse, W. S., Logan, J. L.: Helical Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers, Trans.
AIME, June 1962, p. 655.

4-18

14. Lubinski, A.: Influence of Neutral Axial Stress on Yield and Collapse of Pipe, Trans., AIME
(1975) 97.
15. Hammerlindl, D. J.: Movement, Forces and Stresses Associated with Combination Tubing
Strings Sealed in Packers, J. Pet. Tech., (Feb. 1977), 195-208.
16. Hammerlindl, D. J.: Basic Fluid and Pressure Forces on Oil Well Tubulars, J. Pet. Tech., (Jan.
1980), 153-159.

17. Hammerlindl, D. J.: Packer-to-Tubing Forces for Intermediate Packers, J. Pet. Tech., (March
1980), 515-526.
18. Lubinski, A., Blenkarn, K. A.: Buckling of Tubing in Pumping Wells, Its Effects and Means for
Controlling It, Trans., AIME, (1957) 97.

19. Patton, L. D., Abbott, W. A.: Well Completion and Workovers The Tubing/ Packer System:
Movement and Forces, Pet. Eng. Int., 112-122.
20. King, P. G.: Basic Hydraulics as They Affect Packer Calculations, SWPSC, Lubbock, pp. 45-48.

21. Technical Handbook, Properties of Chemical Compatibility of Elastomers for Seals, Fluid Sealing
Association, 2017 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103.
22. Evett, A.: Thru-Tubing Straddle Packer Expands, Seals in Casing, Ocean Ind., (Feb. 1989),
p. 44.
23. Hushbeck, D. F., Streich, S. G.: Drillable Service Packer Systems Increase Well Service Versatility, SPE 18896, Prod. Oper. Sym., Okla. City, March 13-14, 1989.
24. Hushbeck, D. F.: Precision Perforation Breakdown for More Effective Stimulation Jobs, SPE
14096, Int. Pet. Mtg., Beijing, China, March 17-20, 1986.

4-19

Chapter 5:

Well Heads, Chokes and SSSVs

Well heads
Wellheads are the connection point for the tubulars and the surface flow lines as well as being the surface pressure control point in almost any well operation. They are rated for working pressures of
2000 psi to 15,000 psi (or greater). They must be selected to meet the pressure, temperature, corrosion, and production compatibility requirements of the well. There are three sections of a wellhead,
and each serves a function in the completion of a well. The outermost cemented casing string, usually either the conductor pipe or the surface string, is fitted with a slip type or threaded casing head.
The head, Figure 5.1, also called a well head flange, supports the BOPs during drilling and the rest of
the well head during production. A port on the side of the head allows communication with the annulus
when another casing string is run. For all additional casing strings, a casing spool is used. The spool
has a flange at each end. The flange diameter, bolt pattern and seal assembly are a function of the
spool size range and the pressure rating. When specifying well head equipment, all pieces should be
rated for the same pressure. The tubing is hung and isolated in a tubing spool. The tubing is spaced
out to come to the right height for the seal assembly by the use of pup joints (short pieces of tubing).
Annulus communication is provided in the ports on the side of the spools.

(Kastor, 1972)
Figure 5.1:

Wellhead assembly showing casing and tubing hangers. The casing head is screwed or
welded to the conductor or surface string.

Each spool has alignment screws for aligning the tabular in the center of the spool. Alignment is critical since each flange connection (bolt hole alignment) depends on the last casing being in the center
of the spool below it.
Multiple tubing strings can be accommodated by special heads. These head designs depend on isolation seals in the well head and multiple tubing spools. Setting the tubing and casing strings in tension
is a common practice to offset the effects of buckling created by tubing expansion when hot fluids are
produced.

5- 1

The seal between each section is a single metal ring that fits in grooves in the top and base of connecting spool sections. The pressure to seat these metal-to-metal seals is provided by compression
when the section flanges are bolted together. Oil is applied to the seals before bolting down the
flanges. Various methods and devices for sealing have been tested for seals. Elastomers are subject
to attack by solvents2 and temperature ~ y c l i n gMetal
. ~ to metal seals are the most common, especially
in severe service areas. In sour gas (hydrogen sulfide) areas, special metals are often needed for

wellhead^.^
The final section of the wellhead is the familiar Christmas tree arrangement of control valves. The
tree sits on top of the tubing hanger spool and holds the valves used in well operation, Figure 5.2. The
master valve is a full opening valve that is the main surface control point for access to the tubulars. It
is always fully open when the well is producing or when a workover is in progress. The working pressure rating of the master valve must be sufficient to handle full wellhead pressure. If a valve or fitting
in the upper part of the tree must be replaced, the master valve can be closed without killing the well
(for all wells with a clear tubing, i.e., no rods). On very high pressure (P, > 5000 psi) or hazardous
wells, there may be two master valves; a backup for insurance against leaks in the main valve. The
wing valve (often two valves) are mounted immediately above the master valve in a separate spool.
Produced fluids leave the wellhead at the wing valve connection. The purpose of multiple wing valves
is to allow changing of chokes or flow line repair without interrupting well flow. The swabbing or lubricator valve is mounted above the wing valve and is used to open the well to entry by a tool string. A
schematic of the wellhead and tubulars is shown in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.2:

S2-w-

(Kastor, 1972)

Christmas Tree valve assembly for surface

well control. On high pressure or sour gas
wells,

The choke is the only device used to limit the production of flowing fluids. Using a valve, such as the
wing valve or master valve, to limit fluid flow would allow fluid flow (possibly with solids) to cross the
sealing surface of the valve. This could lead to erosion and a leaking master valve and would require
killing the well to replace the valve.

5-2

Drilled Hole for Conductor

Pipe (if not driven)
Surfaw Pipe DrilkdHob

Prcdmon Caring

Hole Drilled for Liner

Production Liner

Figure5.3:

A rough schematic of a completed

well with normal hardware.

A connection on top of the swabbing valve can be used to mount a lubricator. A lubricator is a pressure rated tube that allows a tool string to be lowered into the well, even while the well is flowing. One
end of the lubricator is attached to the swabbing valve and the other contains a seal assembly that
seals against the wireline that is used to run the tool. Since the lubricator stands straight up to allow
the tool string to drop into the well, the length of the lubricator (and the length of the tool string) is controlled by the length of lubricator tube that can be safely supported by the equipment on location. A
more detailed discussion of the lubricator will be given in the chapter covering wireline techniques.

Subsea Wellheads
A special type of well head is involved in a subsea well. In subsea wells, the wellhead sits on the
oceans bottom at depths from less than a hundred feet to over 2500 ft. Access is much more difficult
than in a surface well, thus subsea completions require a well to be low maintenance, usually a sweet
gas or flowing oil well. The wellheads for these wells must be self contained units with controls that
can be manipulated by remote action at the well head by a ROT (remotely operated tool), by diver or
by ROV (remotely operated vehicle). Almost all subsea operations, including drilling, begin after a
template is installed on the ocean floor. The template serves as a locator for almost all tools used to
drill, complete and workover the well. A schematic of the template and several workover and completion tools are shown in Figure 5.4. The modular work devices in the figure are characteristic of a surface wireline assisted operations. The production well head that fits into the template must provide the

5-3

same solid connection to the well as all land based well. Because of the remote or diver operation,
however, appearances are vastly different than a surface well. Replaceable components of the wellhead such as valves and chokes are often equipped with guide bars to assist in remote replacement.

Figure 5.4:

A subsea template and assorted workover and completion tools.

5-4

Coiled Tubing Well Heads

The use of coiled tubing for recompletion and even initial completion of some wells requires the use of
special hangers or even complete wellheads that are designed especially for coiled tubing. Coiled tubing is being used in place of conventional tubing in some wells to minimize rig cost or to avoid killing
the well to run tubing. Because of the lack of connections, coiled tubing can be run through stripping
rubber seals in the BOP or through a standard stripper head. Hanging the tubing off in the wellhead
requires slips; and, in live well workovers, these can be attached to the tubing and snubbed through
the BOP stack to the slip bowl portion of the wellhead, or the slips can be made a part of the wellhead
and activated from outside.
Coiled tubing completions may incorporate well ore bolt-on components or may be completely spoolable including gas lift valves, SSSVs and packers.
Examples of a hanger element are shown in Figure 5.5 and 5.6. These heads require a setting point
below the master valve for a workover where the wellhead is nippled down. For low cost recompletions where the existing tubing and wellhead will not be removed, the coiled tubing is set through the
existing master valve with the coiled tubing hanger and a new master valve set above the old master
valve. Success of the coiled tubing completions and recompletions has been good when the tubing is
sized correctly for the well condition.

LIFT TWEADS

'

SLICK NECK

,UPPER SEAL ASSEMBLY

.I21 POLY PACK SAL5
'BELLEVLLE SPRNGS

SLIP KTTING PINS

1-14)

-SLIPS

+0-RNG

-SLP RETAWG SPRINGS

p l Ls -A/ / v
cCOIL TUBING HANGER BODY

i-,l41

POLY PACK SEALS

w
1-

SET SCREWS

ETDr

COL TUBING INSTALLATION

RECEPTACLE

TBr

rota1 Tool Co.]

Figure 5.5:

Coiled Tubing Hanger

Hydrate Control in Coiled Tubing Completions

Coiled tubing offers very good opportunities for recompletion or even initial completion of some wells,
however, coiled tubing is particularly susceptible to collapse and compaction from production forces if
an ice plug or hydrate plug forms either in the tubing or around the tubing. Problems in some opera-

5-5

COILED TUBING HANGER

WSnNGPROWCTlON
TvBlNGHANOw
(Camco, 1996)

Figure 5.6:

Coiled Tubing Hanger.

tions where ice plugs have formed in the annulus during flow have caused sufficient force to collapse
and compact coiled tubing to the point where 30-40 ft of coiled tubing are compressed into an area
only 5 or 6 ft long. The only way to prevent ice plugs is either to control the rate of the gas flow so that
the temperature drop during gas expansion does not create ice plugs or to inject a freeze inhibitor
below the hydrate point to totally inhibit the formation of the ice.
Example: Wellhead configuration - For a gas producing formation at 9600 ft with a reservoir pressure
gradient of 0.55 psi/ft, what is the minimum wellhead equipment pressure rating (in psi) needed to
cover production or fracture stimulation with an 8.5 Ib/gal frac fluid, when fracturing the zone at 960011000. The friction pressure down the 4-1/2 in., 12.6 Ib/ft, N-80 work string (packer set at 9300 ft)
during the frac will be 75 psi/lOOO ft of tubing length. During production flow the friction pressure is
10 psi/lOOO ft. Shut in during production will be with a full column of gas (0.1 psi/ft). Standard safety
factor for well head working pressure is 80% of rated capacity.
Solution: Calculate highest possible surface pressure.

5-6

1. Max producing pressure (shut in with gas column) = (9600 x (0.55-0.1) = 4320 psi

Dont use the friction pressure on producing since the worst production surface pressure case is static
with gas in the tubing.
2. Max fracture stimulation surface pressure = (0.83 x 9600) - (9600 x (8.5 x 0.052))
(7968 psi) D (4243 psi) + (698 psi) = 4423 psi

+ (9.3

x 75)

Minimum wellhead pressure rating 4423/0.8 = 5529 psi

Chokes
Chokes hold a backpressure on a flowing well to make better use of the gas for natural gas lift and to
control the bottomhole pressure for recovery reasons. In vertical pipe flow, the gas expands rapidly
with decreasing hydrostatic head and the liquid moves in slugs through the tubing. The potential gas
lift energy is rapidly lost and liquids fall back and begin to accumulate over the perforations. Accumulating liquids hold a back pressure on the formation. If enough liquids accumulate, the well may die
and quit flowing. A choke holds back pressure by restricting the flow opening at the well head. Back
pressure restricts the uncontrolled expansion and rise of the gas and thus helps keep the gas dispersed in the liquids on the way up the tubing. Chokes may be variable or have a set opening,
Figure 5.7. The set openings, often called beans, are short flow tubes. They are graduated in 6 4 t h ~
) small to moderate rate
of an inch. Common flow sizes are about 8 through more than 20 (in 6 4 t h ~for
gas wells. Liquid producers and high rate gas wells us 20+ choke settings. The size of the choke
needed depends on reservoir pressure, tubing size, amount of gas, and amount and density of liquids.
Variable chokes may use a increasing width slot design that allows quick resetting. They are useful on
well cleanups following stimulation where choke size can vary over the course of a single day from
4/64ths to over 40. They are also used where periodic liquid unloading necessitates frequent choke
size changes.

I JI

(from FMC)

Figure 5.7:

One form of adjustable choke.

Solids in the produced fluids are the major source of failures for chokes. Abrasion from sand, scale,
ice, corrosion particles and other solids can cut out the choke restriction and cause the well to load up

5-7

with fluids and die. Choke abrasion from solids and cavitation is increased when large pressure drops
are taken. In these situations, choke life is often measured in minutes. For better performance at high
pressure drops, take the drop in stages across three or more choke sets in series. The problem is with
gas expansion; as gas goes from 5000 psi to atmospheric pressure, the gas expands 340 fold, with a
similar increase in velocity. The same pressure drop, taken in series from 5000 to 3000, from 3000 to
500 and 800 to atmospheric results in gas volume (and velocity) increases of 136 fold (5000 psi to
3000 psi), 150 fold (3000 psi to 800 psi) and 54 fold (500 psi to atmospheric). The 340 fold total drop
is the same, but the velocity increase across any one choke is significantly reduced.

Subsurface Safety Valves

When a well head is damaged, through accident or even terrorist incident, the fluids from a producing
well can continue to flow, creating pollution and safety problems. One solution to the wild well potential is the use of safety valves. Safety valves are used to automatically halt the flow of fluid from a well
in the event that the surface equipment of the well is damaged. Safety valves located at the surface
are surface safety valves (SSVs) and those located below the wellhead are subsurface safety valves
(SSSVs). SSVs are located above the master valve and below the choke and/or beyond the choke on
the production line. SSSVs are located in the tubing string below the ground or mud line. Together, the
surface safety valves and subsurface safety valves form a redundant system of fail-safe valves. The
valves are designed to be fail-safe; they are designed in a normally closed position. Opening of the
valves requires application of a pressure to the valve to hold the valve open. When the pressure is
lost, all safety valves close automatically. Safety valves are typically used offshore, in environmentally
sensitive areas and in some remote locations on unattended wells.
Any requirement for a subsurface safety valve and the depth of the valve below the wellhead depends
upon the application and local government requirements. In offshore U.S., SSSVs are required and
the subsurface safety valve is usually set in the tubing string 100 ft or more below the mud line. In the
event of an accident or disaster, in which the wellhead equipment is partially or completely damaged
or removed, the valves will shut in the wells and prevent pollution and fire.
The pressure that keeps the safety valves open is supplied by a small pump in a hydraulic-controlled
panel on the surface platform.12 The pump is an automatic hydraulic supply unit, powered usually by
clean gas pressure. The pump supplies the control line with a 7 Ib/gal clean hydraulic oil at a set pressure. Other types of actuation systems that have been tried for control of the SSSVs include differential flowing pressure,0 electric downhole solenoid, velocity actuatedIg gas,l3 electromagnetic wave
control (directed through the sediment^)'^-'^ and through loss of tension in the tubing string.
The earliest valves were designed to close if the well flow reached some maximum rate and were
used almost exclusively offshore. The idea behind the design was that the valve would close if the
platform was damaged in a storm. The problem with this type of downhole flow sensitive control, was
that the valves were continually in need of resizing as the wells production capacity declined (reservoir depleted). The maximum rate trigger-mechanism was also a nuisance when high rate flow of gas
was needed to meet market demand or when liquid slugged through the tubing. SSSV control is now
almost exclusively from the surface via a small hydraulic control line on the outside of the tubing. If the
pressure supply is interrupted, the valves closes automatically.
The valve sealing mechanism varies with manufacturer and the age and type of the valve. Most
SSSVs use either a flapper valve or a ball valve with the current favorite being the flapper. The seat
and flapper unit are protected from the well stream by a spring opposed sleeve that slides through the
open flapper and isolates both the seat and the flapper. The sleeve is held in place by the hydraulic
control pressure. The flapper assembly may be elastomer seal, metal-to-metal or a mixture of the two
systems. Metal-to-metal seal units can be built for pressures in excess of 25000 psi. Ball valve units
are equipped with spring loaded mechanisms that rotate the throat out of the well stream when the
hydraulic opening pressure is removed. Examples of flapper and ball valves are shown in Figure 5.8.
Other types of seal mechanisms have also been tried.

5-8

Figure 5.8:

Examples of ball valves

(above, 0 t h ) and flapper (left,
Camco).

The two conveyance types of subsurface safety valves are tubing retrievable and wireline retrievable.
Tubing retrievable valves are run as part of the tubing string (the valve body is made up as part of the
string) whereas wireline retrievable valves can be run and retrieved from a profile set in the tubing
string. In the U.S., the tubing retrievable valves ars almost twice as popular as the wireline retrievable
valves, while in non-U.S. areas, the wireline valves are more popular than the tubing retrievables. The
reasons for the popularity differences are found in personal preferences, workover cost differences
and, to some extent, in regulations regarding well operation. The benefits of the tubing retrievable
valve is that it has a fully opening bore, with very little obstruction to the flowing fluids. One disadvantage is that if there is a problem with the valve, the tubing must be pulled to the depth of the valve for
service. This requires use of a rig; a large cost for many remote platforms. The tubing retrievable
valves also require a relatively large upper casing section because of large valve body. The large
outer body diameter (over 7 in. for a 4-1/2 in. bore valve) is necessitated by the flapper, spring and
pressure equalization equipment within the valve. The wireline retrievable subsurface safety valve can
be replaced by wireline without pulling the well, but it restricts the opening through which fluids may
flow. The flow restriction for this type of valve may reduce 4-1/2 in. tubing to about a 1-112 in. bore
over the 5 to 6 ft length of the valve. For most wells, this is not a severe restriction over a very short
length. In wells that produce paraffin or scale, however, this flow restriction, especially near the top of
the tubing may serve as the site for solids deposition and promote rapid valve failure. In wells that produce sand, any restriction may be a site for abrasion. In wells that do not precipitate or produce solids,
the valves are often a good choice, especially in areas where well deliverability rate is critical and time
consuming workovers (such as pulling the string to replace a tubing retrievable SSSV) must be
avoided. Wireline retrievable valves must be set in a special profile that is made up as part of the
string. The profile seat is connected to the same type of external control line that is used for the tubing
retrievable valve. A set of seals on the outside of the wireline valve isolates the hydraulic pressure
port in the profile and allows a connection to the valve control mechanism. If the valve fails or malfunctions, the wireline unit can be removed and replaced by a low cost wireline operation with minimum
productivity interruption.

5-9

Safety valve failures are rare but have been documented. When a valve fails to close, it is classified
as a failure. When a valve fails to open, it is classified as a malfunction. The difference between the
two labels comes from the design intent of the valve. Since the valve is designed to close when surface control pressure is lost, a failure is failure to close. Either event is troublesome.
One study on the reliability of SSSVs, showed the valves to have a failure rate that was on the order of
0.8 to 2.3% in normal operations.16 One of the biggest reasons for SSSV failure (of valves tested) is
plugging of the sealing mechanism with paraffin, scale, produced sand, ice and other ~ o l i d s . It~is, ~ ~ ~ ~
very important to operate the valves periodically so debris can be removed from the assembly and
that valves internal mechanism can be lubricated. This operation is known as exercising the valve
and is recommended to be done once per month. To exercise the valve, the wing vent is usually
closed to shut the well in and the safety valve is open and closed several times. Merely releasing and
restoring the hydraulic pressure at the surface will not confirm that the valve has actually closed. After
the hydraulic control pressure is released, a few hundred psi can be bled off the tubing at the surface.
If the pressure does not come back to initial shut-in pressure, then the valve is sealing. The amount of
pressure that needs to be bled off at the surface depends of what seat material is in the valve. Elastomer seals are tested at about 500 psi while metal-to-metal seals are usually tested at least 500 to
over 1000 psi. The recommended test pressure is available from the valve manufacturer. A regular
maintenance schedule may be a legal requirement of ~ p e r a t i o n . ~ - ~
Reliability of the valves is very good if precautions are taken on regularly exercising the control
mechanism. All of the 36 wells on the ill-fated Piper Alpha platform in the North Sea were equipped
with SSSVs as per regulations. After the platform was destroyed, the fire was caused by the uncontrolled volume of produced gas in the pipeline (nearest shutoff was reportedly 1-1/2 miles away). The
fire-fighting crew reported only minor leaks from tubing of the shutin wells. In Kuwait, ten wells of the
700+ that had well heads damaged or destroyed were reportedly equipped with SSSVs. The valves
prevented fires on those wells.
Opening the valve, either on initial well startup or after shut-in to check valve operation should follow a
set of simple rules. To prevent valve damage, the pressure on both sides of the valve must be equalized. If the valve is a flapper design, the pressure is best equalized by pumping down the tubing to
open the valve. If the unit is a ball valve, it may have to be opened by activation of the hydraulic pressure control unit. Flapper valves can also be opened by hydraulic actuator pressure. With either system, if the valve must be opened by the hydraulic mechanism, the differential pressure across the
valve must be equalized before valve opening to prevent valve damage. Pressure equalization is
accomplished with internal baffles that allow controlled flow of gas or liquid through the a part of the
valve body. After pressure above and below the valve is equalized, the valve can easily be opened. If
the valve is opened with a differential pressure across the valve, the fluid flow across the seal may
cause erosion of the valve face.
An additional element of consideration for SSSVs is the construction material. Since they are directly
in the flow stream, the SSSVs must be designed to withstand operational corrosion or erosion forces.
Construction materials of corrosion resistant metals such as lncalloy or Hastelloy are common.
Selection of the type of SSSV depends on well condition^.^ Included in the considerations are legal
requirements, depth of placement, pollution standards, dual strings,20r21subsea wellhead,22? casing
size near surface, presence of kill strings, annular flow, cost of workovers, frequency of workovers,
type of workovers, deliverability obligations and the cost of the valve. When these and other variables
such as pressure, setting depth, and temperature are considered, a decision can generally be made
by examining the requirements and behavior of the available equipment.8
Setting depth of a valve depends on the ability of that valve to close in the event of an accident. The
SSSV is rated with a closing pressure, F, If the control line pressure drops below F, the valve closes,
shutting in the well. The F, value effectively limits how deep the valve can be set since either control
line hydrostatic fluid pressure or annular fluid hydrostatic (in the event of a control line break) could

5-10

keep the valve open if the fluid hydrostatic exceeded the SSSV closing pressure. A simple formula
translates the closing pressure rating into maximum set depth.

Max Set Depth

MHFG

Set Depth = maximum set depth of SSSV

F, = closing pressure rating of SSSV
F,
= a safety factor, F, = 0.15 F, usual minimum is 75 psi.
MHFG = maximum hydraulic fluid gradient.
In th case of the valve with F, = 350 psi, an empty (unpressured annulus) nd a 7 Ib/gal hydraulic oil,
the set depth is:

Max Set Depth

350 psi - 75 psi

0.364 psi/ft

755 ft

The 0.364 psi/ft is the gradient of 7 Ib/gal fluid and 75 psi was used because F, = 0.15 x 350 = 53 psi.
If the annulus is liquid filled (or gas under pressure), the MHFG that would be used is the maximum
gradient produced at the SSSV. For example, a 15 Ib/gal packer fluid in the annulus would change the
maximum setting depth for the same spring to:

Max Set Depth

350 psi 75 psi

0.78 psi/ft

352 ft

Example: An offshore platform uses a SCSSV, set at 450 ft below the mud line (ocean floor). The
water depth is 300 ft and the platform is 75 ft above the sea surface. The hydraulic fluid used for valve
operation has a density of 8.4 Ib/gal. Sea water density is 8.5 Ib/gal. The annulus of the well is filled
with inhibited sea water (8.5 Ib/gal). What is the minimum flapper closure pressure (Fc) needed (in
psi) for operation under all environments including loss of the control line at the downhole valve.
FS = 75 psi
Solution: Set Depth = [Fc D Fs] I MHFG,

Fc = [Set Depth x MHFG] + Fs

There are two possible hydraulic fluid and set depth combinations:
1. at operating conditions, set depth = 450 + 300 + 75 = 825 ft, The hydraulic density = (8.4 x
0.052) = 0.437 psilft for this condition.
2. at "disaster" conditions (loss of control line at valve) set depth = 450 + 300 = 750 ft, (note that
the air gas is not use D and fluid now is sea water). The hydraulic fluid density = 8.5 x 0.052 =

0.442 for this condition.

Condition 1, Fc = (825 x 0.437)
Condition 2, Fc = (750x 0.442)

+ 75 = 436 psi
+ 75 = 407 psi

..

The minimum flapper closure Dressure needed is 436 D S ~

5-11

The other safety valve path that must be considered is the annular area. Annular safety control is necessary in areas that require SSSV isolation where the annular area is or could become a flow path.
The annular pressure control systems that are currently on the market are packer type devices that
use an applied hydraulic force to hold the annular flow channels open. All of these devices serve as a
hanger so that the tubing suspension is maintained regardless of wellhead damage. Hanging significant tubing weight from these devices causes significant problems because of potential casing deformation. Two approaches have helped cure this problem. The packer slip assembly has been enlarged
in one model to spread out the load. In the other approach, a casing profile is run in the casing string
and the tubing hanger is set in the profile.
A special case in subsurface safety valves is the coiled tubing completion, Figure 5.9. This completion, all completely spoolable onto a coiled tubing reel .can be more easily pulled in the event of a
workover.

CONTROL LINE HANGER

CT HANGER WITH SUPS

AND PACK-OFF SET
CONTROL LINE
COILED TUElNQ

SAFETY VALVE

QAS LIFT VALVES

LOCATOR SEAL ASSY

PER
FLAPPER

(Carnco, 1996)
Figure5.9

A coiled tubing completion with a subsurface

safety valve.

References
1. Buzarde, L. E., Jr. Kastor, R. L., Bell, W. T., DePriester, C. L.: Production Operations Course I
Well Completions, SPE, 1972.

2. Bazile, D. J., I I , Kluck, L. M.: New Wellhead Equipment for Old Oilfields, SPE 16122,
SPEAADC Conference, New Orleans, March 15-18, 1987.

5-12

3. Coxe, B., Pyle, C. L.: Wellhead Innovations for Hot, High-pressure Wells, J. Pet. Tech. (February 1983), pp. 284-290.
4. Fowler, E. D., Rhodes, A. F.: Checklist Can Help Specify Proper Wellhead Material, Oil and
Gas J. (January 24, 1977), pp. 62-65.
5. Bleakley, W. B.: The How and Why of Downhole Safety Valves, Petroleum Engineer (January

1986), pp. 48-50.

6. Peden, J. M.: Rationality in Completion Design and Equipment Selection in the North Sea,
Paper SPE 15887 presented at SPE European Petroleum Conference, London, October 20-22,
1986, pp. 347-361.

7. Krause, W. F. and P. S. Sizer: Selection Criteria for Subsurface Safety Equipment for Offshore
Completions, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July 1970), pp. 793-799.
8. Nystrom, K. 0. and D. W. Morris: Selecting A Surface-Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve for
Deep, Hot, High-pressure, Sour Gas Offshore Completions, Paper SPE 11997 presented at
58th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, October 5-8, 1983, pp. 1-4.
9. Beggs, H. D.; J. P. Brill; E. A. Proano, Roman-Lazo, C. E.: Selection and Sizing of Velocity-Actuated Subsurface Safety Valves, Trans. ASME, June 1980, Vol. 102, pp. 82-91.
10. Gano, J. C.: Differential Sensing Direct-Control Gas Storage Well Safety Valve, Paper SPE
19086 presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Dallas, June 7-9, 1989, pp. 287-294.
11. Gresham, J. S.and T. A. Turcich: Development of a Deepset Electric Solenoid Subsurface

Safety Valve System, Paper SPE 14004 presented at the Offshore Europe 85 Conference,
Aberdeen, September 10-13, pp. 1-9.
12. Schaefer, H.: Subsurface Safety Valves, Paper OTC 1295 presented at Second Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, April 22-24, 1970, pp. 681-688.
13. Morsi, K. M.: Surface and Downhole Production Safety Systems for Sour Oil and Gas Wells,
Paper SPE 13743 presented at Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain,
March 11-14, 1985, pp. 1-6.
14. Drakeley, B. K.: Electromagnetic waves used for valve control, Offshore (September 1987),
pp. 53-54.
15. Kleckner, J. J.; R. C. Dickerson; P. M. Snider; J. A. Zublin; R. L. Sphan; P. F. Menne; J. H. Van
Der Lichte; B. H. Ter Horst; N. H. Akkerman; L. H. Rorden; H. S.More; J. E. Kattner; A. Samuels;
R. A. Wendt; T. Hoh; E. Beauregard; P. L. Ferguson; P. J. H. Carnell and H. H. Clark: Production
Operations Forum, Paper SPE 15468 presented at the 61st Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, October 5-8, 1986, pp. 1-6.
16. Medley, E. L.: Experience With Surface Controlled Sub-Surface Safety Valves, Paper EUR 32
presented at European Offshore Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, London, October 24-27,
1978, pp. 257-262.
17. Molnes, E.; M. Rausand and B. Lindqvist: SCSSV Reliability Tested In North Sea, Petroleum
Engineer (November 1987), pp. 38-40.
18. Engen, G. and M. Rausand: Reliability Studies Test SCSSVs In The North Sea, Petroleum
Engineer (February 1984), pp. 30-36.

5-13

19. Busch, J. M.; B. J. Policky and D. C. G. Llewelyn: Subsurface Safety Valves: Safety Asset or
Safety Liability? Journal of Petroleum Technology (October 1985), pp. 1813-1 818.
20. Geyelin, J. L.: Down Hole Safety Valve for Concentric Completion, Paper SPE 16536 presented at Offshore Europe 87, Aberdeen, September 8-11, pp. 1-9.
21. Calhoun, M. B.; M. Deaton and J. W. Tamplen: Subsurface Safety Systems for TLP Completions, Paper SPE 12996 presented at the European Petroleum Conference, London, October
25-28, 1984, pp. 313-315.
22. ;Yonker, J. H.: Newest Through-Flowline Retrievable Safety Valves for Subsea Completions, J.
Pet. Tech., (Nov. 1984), p. 1922-1928.
23. Going, W. S.and R. E. Pringle: Safety Valve Technology for the 1990s, Paper SPE 18393 presented at SPE European Petroleum Conference, London, October 16-19, 1988, pp. 545-552.
24. Morris, A. J.: Elastomers Are Being Eliminated in Subsurface Completion Equipment, Paper
SPE 13244 presented at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, September 16-19, 1984, pp. 1-4.
25. Mason, P. G. T.: Downhole High-pressure Equalizing Safety Valves: A Solution-Variable Labyrinth Seals, Paper OTC 5576 presented at the 19th Annual OTC, Houston, April 27-30, 1987,
pp. 217-227.
26. Raulins, G. M.: Safety by Down-Hole Well Control, J. Pet. Tech. (March 1972), p. 263-271.
27. Rubli, J.: New Developments In Subsurface Safety Valve Technology.
28. Sides, W. M., Going, W.: Controlling Self Equalizing Velocity Extends Valve Life, Petroleum
Engineer Int., February 1992.
29. Hopper, Christopher T.; Simultaneous Wireline Operations from a Floating Rig with a Subsea
Lubricator, SPE Production Engineering (August 1990), pp. 270-274.
30. OBrien, E. J. Ill, Hetland, Torger; The Underwater Production System, SPE (February 1991),
pp. 33-39.
31. King, Gregory W.; Drilling Engineering for Subsea Development Wells, SPE (September 1990),
pp. 1176-1183.
32. Cyvas, M. K.; Subsea Adjustable Choke Valves: A Focus on a Critical Component, SPE
(August 1989), pp. 301-308.
33. Simpson, D. M., Pearce, J. L.; Downhole Maintenance of Subsea Completions, SPE (May
1989), pp. 161-166
34. Dines, Chris, Cowan, P., Headworth; An Operational Subsea Wireline System, Journal of
Petroleum Technology (February 1989), pp. 171-1 76.
35. Dawson, A. P., Murray, M. V.; Magnus Subsea Wells: Design, Installation, and Early Operational
Experience, SPE (November 1987), pp. 305-312.
36. Reynolds, P. W., Marquette, L. J.; Completing Subsea Wells at Ekofisk, Petroleum Engineers
International, (1978), pp. 57-60.

5-14

37. Shell tries Recessed Subsea Completion, Drilling Contractor (April 1982), pp. 132-136.
38. Kelly, A. O.,Bourgoyne, Dr., Jr., A. T., Holden, Dr. W. R.; A Computer Assisted Well Control
Safety System for Deep Ocean Well Control, Paper presented at international Well Control
SymposiumNVorkshop in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, (November 27-29, 1989), pp. 1-18.
39. Davis, R. J. R., Pond, R. J.; Development of the Subsea Completion System for the Highlander
Field, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (April 1986), pp. 453-460.
40. Morrill, David L.; The Simple Subsea Well Concept, SPE (September 1979), pp. 1083-1091.

5-15

Chapter 6:

Corrosion and Erosion

Corrosion
Corrosion is defined as destruction of a metal by chemical or electrochemical reaction with its environment. It is reported that 80% of failures in production and pipeline operations are caused by corrosion.2 Corrosion may be apparent by metal loss, strength loss by cracking and solids problems
caused by formation of corrosion by-products. One of the first decisions in well completion design is
the selection of the proper casing and tubing. Corrosion will not alter calculation of the tensile, burst
and collapse, but it may dictate the selection of the grade of material necessary to satisfy these
requirements. Corrosion is common in almost all hydrocarbon-producing environments and costs hundreds of millions of dollars throughout the industry every year.3 In addition, the economic problems are
intensified through loss of revenues due to down time and deferred p r o d ~ c t i o n . ~
For corrosion to occur, there must be a circuit produced through which electrical current can flow. The
circuit is called the corrosion cell and the electrical current produced by the process, although very
small, can do enormous damage to metal systems.
The basic cause of corrosion is instability of metal in its refined form. Because of the free energy relationship, the metals tend to revert to their natural state through the process of corrosion. Pure metals
rarely exist in the natural world. To obtain a pure metal, a salt of the metal (the ore) is refined (energy
added). This energy input is stored in the metal and serves as a source of potential (voltage) for the
corrosion circuit. Since different metals require varying amounts of energy to refine, there are variations in the amount of voltage available for the circuit. The following table from Patton5 is included to
show the tendencies of metal to corrode. The half-cell potentials, which were reported by Peabody,6
were measured with a hydrogen reference electrode in a solution of the metal salt.

The ranking of metals from most easily corroded to least corroded is a galvanic series. For metals
common in the oil industry, the ranking is as follows.2
magnesium (and magnesium alloys)
zinc (and galvanized coatings)
aluminum (soft alloys)
cadmium (and cadmium coatings)
aluminum (hard alloys)
steel, cast iron
stainless steel (300 AISI, active)
lead
tin

6-1

naval brass, magnesium bronze, yellow brass

admiralty brass, aluminum bronze, red brass
cooper, silicone bronze
lnconel
Monel
stainless steel (300 AISI, passage)
Hastelloy B and C-276 (and other high nickel alloys, super alloys)
Galvanic corrosion occurs when the dissimilar metals are coupled in an electrolyte. The attack is from
current flow within the simple battery formed by the metals and the water. Metals that are widely separated in the previous galvanic series will show the highest level of corrosion. Coatings on the metal
surface, such as iron carbonates, block the galvanic current and lessen c o r r o ~ i o n . ~
In any steel, the important sources of galvanic cell potential difference are:8

1. The various states of heat treatment of the steel, such as:

a. weld metal deposits,
b. the junction of weld and base metal,
c. tubing end heat treatment prior to upset (joint) manufacture
2. Cold Work and residual stress that result in anodes.
The Corrosion Circuit

The corrosion circuit requires an anode (the site of corrosion on the metal), a cathode, a metal connection between the anode and the cathode, and an electrolyte (liquid) surrounding the anode and the
cathode.
Chemical Reaction

In acid solutions (pH e 7),reduction of hydrogen ions to hydrogen gas can be the dominant reaction in
the absence of H2S gas. In neutral or basic soluiions (pH 17),reduction of oxygen is the dominate
reaction. When gases such as CO2 and H2S are present, the reactions are modified by the gases.
Presence of CO2in neutral solutions can cause direct reaction of bicarbonate or carbonate ion with
the steel. This can deposit a beneficial protective films such as iron carbonate. H2S on the metal surface stops the formation of hydrogen gas from hydrogen ions and permits a large percentage of the
cathodic hydrogen ions to enter the steeL7 This is the start of one of the hydrogen embrittlements;
cracking in hard steels or blistering in soft steels.

As the metal corrodes, it dissolves at the anode and enters the solution as ions. It is an oxidation reaction since the iron leaves in an
state. The electrons flow toward the cathode, where hydrogen gas
is evolved. The schematic of the corrosion cell is shown in Figure 6.1.5 The anode reactions are:

2 F e 4 2 F e +,+4e
2Fe +%2Fe

+3+2e

The cathodic reaction involves electrons received from the anodic reaction:

312 0, + 3 H, 0 + 6 e + 60 H-

6-2

1 F2e 03 H' O2 ~

1/2 02

2H+
k " 2
2e'

ANODE
-

20H'

2e'
CATHODE

ELECTROLYTE
METAL SURFACE

ELECTRON
FLOW
(Jones. 19881

Figure 6.1:

A representation of the corrosion cell.

The overall corrosion reaction is:

2Fe+3U20+3/2 0 2 + 2 f - e ( O H ) ,
This reaction is for corrosion produced in neutral, agitated salt water.5 The actual location of the
anode and cathode may vary with the inhomogeneities in the metal and attack may be localized or
may occur over a very wide area. The rate of reaction is dependent upon many factors, including the
salinity of the water, flow velocity, temperature, pH, metal alloy characteristics, and dissolved gases
such as oxygen, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.
The overall corrosion process results in weight loss at the anode caused by the loss of iron and hydrogen embrittlement of high strength and highly stressed steels by penetration of the atomic hydrogen.
The corrosion reaction is most severe where pits are formed. The intensity of the pitting is affected by
the manufacturing, handling and production factors. In these areas, abnormalities such as large
grains, poor heat treating, improper stress relief, mill marks, pipe wrench nicks, damage during running, and other factors contribute heavily to the location of electrochemical attack that causes pits.
Endean summarized the common sources of metal corrosion as:*

1. Hydrogen sulfide causes both pitting and general attack. The reaction product is a black, usu-

ally shiny mass and may be in the form of a hard scale or a finely divided solid dispersed in the
water.

2. Carbon dioxide attack is through pitting with brown or black reaction product. Pits produced in
CO2 attack are frequently in a line and resemble a large cavity. The remainder of the pipe may be

unaffected.
3. High concentration chloride brines with a pH of 6-7 produce shallow wide spread pitting attack
similar to acids but much less severe.

4. HCI mineral acid attack produces severe general pitting with frequent occurrence of deep channels and deep pits.

6-3

5. Sulfate reducing bacteria SRBs produce a localized corrosion by trapping their own low pH
waste product and protecting the corrosion from inhibitor contact. The location of the corrosion is
usually under the bacteria colony.
6. Erosion damage - high velocity contact by fluids, gases containing mists and droplets, or fluids

containing solids generates a smooth surface with frequent shallow channels, plateaus, and
sharply defined transition areas, especially around the area of highest fluid velocity and directly
across from perforation^.^
The amount of corrosion is often expressed as a mils (or thousandths of an inch) per year, MPY. This
means of expressing corrosion is only usable when the corrosion rate is an even attack on the surface
of the steel. Where pits occur, an MPY value is useless: generation of even a few deep pits can ruin a
piece of equipment without loosing but the smallest fraction of a percent of the total metal mass. Rate
of pit growth varies with the depth and size of the pit and the rate of penetration of the pit will actually
increase with depth of the pit.2 As the pit is growing, the very bottom of the pit is the anode. This area
becomes smaller with pit depth as the pit forms a V shape. The smaller bottom area looses metal at a
faster rate to satisfy the current flow of the corrosion circuit. This is the reason for pin hole leaks in an
otherwise solid piece of equipment.
Acid Gases
The special case of production of hydrogen sulfide gas, H2S, carbon dioxide gas, CO2, or a mixture of
the two is the area of acid gas technology.O The corrosion produces one or more types of Hydrogen
Embrittlement, HE, in the steel. Hydrogen embrittlement reduces the toughness of steel (a loss of ductility) and is most prevalent around existing defects (micro or macroscopic) in the steel. The steels
most susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement problems are those with a yield strength of 80,000 psi, or
greater (N-80 and higher alloys). In lower strength steels, hydrogen blistering is occasionally found.
The corrosion caused by acid gasses is influenced by the pH and by pressure, temperature, the corrosion resistance of the metal and the passive corrosion films formed on the surface of the metal.
Several forms of hydrogen embrittlements, HE, have been described including stress corrosion cracking and stress sulfide cracking.&

All forms of hydrogen embrittlement are brittle failures of a metal at a stress level below its yield
strength as a result of their exposure to atomic hydrogen. The atomic hydrogen is generated on
metal surfaces by corrosion r e a ~ t i o n . The
~ hydrogen is diffused into the metal and causes a reduction in the ductility of the metal. Sour gas increases the corrosion of HE by: (1) low pH of fluids that
contain H2S, (2) sulfide causes a greater percentage of the hydrogen created at the surface to enter
the metal, and (3) the anodic portion of the corrosion reaction tends to be localized, which helps
cracks initiate. The result of these actions is extremely rapid failure of some metals in sour fluids.
HE is generally associated with high strength steel and is common with H2S wells. The factors controlling HE are:*

1. Steel yield strength steel with yield strengths of 90,000 psi or lower (C-90, N-80, L-80, C-75,

etc.) are usually less susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement.

2. Hardness Maximum hardness should be a Rockwell C scale of 22 or lower (the hard steels
are much more prone to attack from HE).

3. Stress level - At low stresses HE failures are lessened. In HE susceptible steels there is a
threshold below which HE will not occur. This threshold value is lowered for higher strength
steels.

6-4

4. Internal stress The internal stress, which includes stored tensile stress produced by welding,

bending or surface damage is a common initiator for corrosion.

5. Hydrogen concentration The time to failure of any high strength steel is a function of the con-

centration of hydrogen.

6. Temperature HE failures usually do not occur above 150F. (A special exception to this is the

case of stress corrosion cracking7)

Two special cases of HE are sulfide corrosion cracking and stress sulfide cracking. Sulfide corrosion
cracking, SCC, causes a brittle failure of metals by the action of localized corrosion and stress.lg SCC
is normally encountered near the bottom of wells and in hotter environments than other forms of HE.7
In sour gas systems, SCC causes failure of high strength steels, all types of stainless, and many low
alloy nickel-based alloys.lg SCC will also occur in production of hot brines (chloride rich). SCC is common in stainless alloys and materials. Alloys containing about 8% nickel are the most ~usceptible.~
Alloys with over about 42% nickel are usually immune to SCC.7 These alloys include Inconel, Incoloy,
Monel and Hasteloy. Other immune alloys may include cobalt-cromium-nickel-molybedenum alloys,
nickel-free low alloys, and nickel-free martensitic stainless steels.
There is a relationship between the environment and the metal to cause SCC; only certain metals will
crack in given environments at the critical stress level. SCC is considered to be an anodic process in
which a crack is initiated (usually by HE) and reaction progresses inside the crack. The dissolution of
metal at the tip of the crack controls the process. The environment inside the crack may be very different from that on the surface of the casing due to the large area of metal and the protected environment. The pH of the produced fluids, for example, may be between 4 and 6, while inside the crack, pH
may be between 1 and 2 (highly acid) because of higher concentration of chloride ions, which
increase the local corrosion rate.lg The overall corrosion rate of a material that is undergoing SCC
may be low and outer appearance may be good. However, the detrimental SCC corrosion in the crack
occurs as the result of the localized, often unseen, attack.
Stress sulfide cracking, SSC, occurs in high strength (high hardness) steels exposed to sour gas production. It is also known as hydrogen stress cracking and hydrogen embrittlement cracking.20 SSC is
cracking that results from hydrogen charging (large volume entrance of hydrogen) of high strength
and/or high hardness steels. Most SSC occurs at lower temperatures and is prevalent in the upper
parts of the well. It may accelerate during periods of shutin or cool down, requiring only a reduction in
temperature to become active. SSC is a form of hydrogen embrittlement and is a bulk alteration of the
metal surrounding the surface areas.
Most corrosion rates increase with an increase in temperature up to about 140 to 150F. At this point,
several forms of corrosion are lessened and some corrosion inhibiting films begin to form. Although an
increase in temperature renders the steel more susceptible to attack by SCC, an increase in temperature decreases the rate of stress sulfide cracking, SSC.At higher temperatures, the atomic hydrogen
that contributes to the initiation of the crack by embrittlement is able to diffuse out of the steel. Temperature thresholds exist for SSC and above these limits, SSC does not occur. The limits for hydrogen
sulfide content and temperature are indicated in Figures 6.2 and 6-3. Figure 6.3 shows that the temperature threshold for SSC free behavior is dependent upon the grade of steel. SSC can be controlled
with use of lower strength alloys.

Controlling Corrosion

Approaching corrosion control from a well completion position may involve selection of corrosionresistant alloy,i1~i2*19*2-24 films and coatings,2532 liquid
or cathodic protection
device^.'^^^-^^ The least expensive route will depend on the produced or injected fluids, completion
design and the level of protection required in the operation.

6-5

ssc

0.001

10

do

80

120
140
YIELD STRENGTH (kri)
100

160

180

(Kane & Greer, 1977)

Figure 6.2:

The maximum H2S concentration limit for

SSC-free behavior at 100% of yield strengthapplied stress, shown as a function of the
yield strength of the steel.

m
U

'i20
U

Q6T

Ic

ssc

100

(Kane & Greer, 1977)

Figure 6.3:

Mimimum temperature for SSC-free behavior

at 100% of yield strength-applied stress,
shown as a function of the yield strength of
the steel.

Modifying the produced fluid by changing pH or removing water or dissolved gasses such as oxygen,
CO2, or H2S are usually only available for use in pipelines and injection systems. Gas removal systems such as gas stripping, degeneration and chemical treating may all be used to remove or reduce
the content of gases. Changing the character of the produced fluids is usually achieved by changing
operating conditions to control the separation of the condensing phase.

6-6

T
c
r

i'

f 2

0
00

d
F

(rr

r;

1
0
0
CI

Coatings are a relatively simple and inexpensive way to isolate the metal (the anode and cathode)
from the electrolyte liquid. Permanent coatings include plastic, tars, cement and paint. Coatings are
usually chosen for a protection against a particular liquid. The plastic coatings, for example, include
resins and polymers that are resistant to low pH waters, oxygen, COs, or salts. Coatings are not resistant to all influences however: acids, alcohols, and other materials will destroy some coatings. Care
must be taken in working over wells with coated tubing to avoid damage to the surface of the coating.
Abrasive action such as wireline action or coiled tubing are very detrimental. Damage to coated surfaces offer sites for very localized, intense corrosion.
Liquid corrosion inhibitors act as temporary coatings or films on the surface and are effective in providing a passive film or a coating if they are replenished on a regular basis. Selection and application
of inhibitors are critical elements in the corrosion control program of a well. There are literally hundreds of chemical inhibitors for control of dozens of different corrosion problems on various types of
steels. The inhibitor for a particular application must be selected from lab or field tests at the conditions where the corrosion will be active. Normally, these selection tests are started in the lab and completed in the field with field trials on test metal coupons.
Complete reviews and comparisons of the methods of applying corrosion inhibitors are rare, but a few
case histories do exist. Houghton and W e ~ t e r m a r khave
~ ~ provided data on some corrosion problems
in the North Sea and compared the methods for application of corrosion inhibitors. In the wells that
were used for a database, average workover life was approximately 60-120 days. CO2 corrosion and
erosion were present in these wells. Erosion was determined to have a significant influence on the
rate of corrosion and CO2 corrosion/erosion was found to be the normal mechanism of attack on these
wells.
During the study, the rate of corrosion for these wells was determined to be exponential rather than
linear. Once the corrosion started, very rapid increases in the corrosion rate were common. The most
prevalent place for attack of the corrosion/erosion was at changes in diameter or direction of the fluid
flow. The paper pointed out that sweet corrosion was prevalent in these wells even though there was
less than 1 4 % formation water in the total produced fluids.
Ekofisk wells in the study that had a high GOR showed increased corrosion; probably by providing
greater volumes of CO2 and by increasing the flaw velocities of the produced fluids. The GOR has
also been shown to be a factor in corrosion in other studies. Even in gas wells, a change in flowing
fluid composition because of condensation of C-3+ hydrocarbons can result in a change in corrosion
intensity or location.40 The most common corrosion site depth was in the mid-range from 40007000 ft. The mid-range location on these wells corresponds with gas breakout and increased turbulence from suspended gas that is rapidly expanding due to the lowering of hydrostatic head.
In all cases of wells deviated more than 20, a preferential attack along the low side of the tubing was
spotted. This attack reportedly resulted in troughs 1 in. wide that tracked along the inside of the low
side of the tubing.
This pipe trough development has also been though to be the result of a low oil wetting tendency of
the Ekofisk crude, which would result in a water wetted pipe. If the fluid velocity in these flowing wells
is below 2.5 to 3 ft/sec, the approximate minimum velocity for water entrainment in the oil, a free water
layer would exist at the lowest point due to gravity separation and increased corrosion could occur.8
The corrosion/erosion attack location was identified using casing calipers. Corrosion in caliper tracks
has also been observed. The cause may be that early caliper surveys were not followed with inhibitor
treatment to repair damaged protective films.
In the higher volume wells, preferential attack occurred on the pin-end shoulder on the coupling. The
shoulder seems to cause additional turbulence and pitting is a byproduct of the turbulence.

6-9

The paper reported a comparison of inhibitor treatment types, in terms of both economically application and performance. Formation squeezes with inhibitor, continuous injection, and tubing displacements were all examined. Continuous injection was found to be the least expensive in almost all flow
rates studied.
A second case study, and one that covers economics of chemical inhibitor usage was provided by
Akram and Butler.41 This work showed that the cost of the successful inhibitor protection program was
about $29,000 per well per year, compared with a super alloy tubular cost (for passive control) of
about 1.25 million. The cost of carbon steel tubulars for the same well was $271,000 (all dollar values
are 1982 U.S. dollars). The economic impact of the successful inhibitor program was significant;
34 years of inhibitor operation to equal the simple difference of super alloy and carbon steel tubular
cost. Obviously, the successful control of corrosion using either method depended upon good design
and strict application. All inhibitor films have to be replaced on a regular basis. While this addition is
relatively easy in injection wells by surface addition to injected fluids, it is more difficult in producing
wells. The inhibitor must be circulated into position and allowed to film on a clean surface without
being disturbed by action of other surfactants, inhibitors or solvents. Most inhibitors must be placed as
a dispersed phase in a non reactive fluid without the aid of surfactants. The application of these materials may range from simple dump jobs down the back side (low pressure injection into the annulus
at the surface in a well without a packer) to periodic workovers requiring the well to be shutin while
inhibitor is injected down the tubing. Some wells are completed with a small string of tubing (1/4 in. to
1 in. diameter) down the outside or inside of the tubulars where the inhibitor and other treating chemicals can be injected continuously.
Some naturally passive films (a reaction product of the metal and the wetting fluid) provide a barrier
surface that reduces the potential produced in the corrosion circuit by altering the reactivity of surface.
The film may be a metal oxide laye?5v27 or other reaction by-product that is not easily attacked by produced fluid. These films are recognized as major corrosion controlling mechanisms. Corrosion of low
alloy steels at temperatures below 140F, increase with the partial pressure of CO2 in the gas phase.
Above 140F the corrosion decreases with temperature because of the formation of iron carbonate
and iron oxide films. The films are destroyed by acidizing or erosion during high velocity flow. In certain cases, passivity is designed into the alloy by combining chromium and nickel with iron. Whether
these iron-chromium and iron-chromium-nickel alloys are active or passive depends upon the alloy
composition and the electrolyte. For example, in CO2 rich environments, 13% chrome alloys are successful in preventing corrosion that destroys other alloys.25
Cathodic protection using sacrificial anodes or impressed current to offset the current of the corrosion
cell, can be applied to the outside of casing and pipelines and to the insides of production processing
vessels where a continuous water phase exists. It cannot be used internally in most production tubing
or inside pipelines.

Materials for Sour Service

The following description of materials for Sour Service is from Wilhelm and Kanelg and represents
generalized guidelines on selection of tubular components for hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide
service.
High strength tubular steel grades, often containing chromium and molybdenum designated for use in
H2S service include C75, L80, C90, and some specially processed C95. These materials exhibit necessary resistance to SSC under some specific conditions for use in sour gas operations.
In general, the higher the yield strength of a material, the more susceptible it is to SSC. There are no
recognized carbon or low alloy steel compositions suitable for sour service at ambient temperatures
with yield strength in excess of 110,000 psi. The most widely used criterion for selection of materials
for sour service is hardness. NACE requirement MR-01-75 specifies that for steels to be considered,
they must have a hardness value below HRC-22 (some exceptions to HRC-26).42

6-10

Stainless steel casing (greater than 12% chromium) are used when superior resistance to general corrosion is necessary. Table 2 shows composition of several of the high nickel alloy materials. The
steels increase in cost as corrosion resistance is increased.
The following paragraphs, also from Wilhelm and Kane,lg describe the general classifications of the
high strength alloys available for use in corrosive environments. Stainless steel is a generic term for a
group of steels having a chromium content of over 12%. Most metallurgists refer to the stainless steels
with the more widely based term corrosion resistant alloy, or CRA. The general classes of the alloys
are listed in order of increasing resistance to SCC and SSC (also increasing cost).
1. Martensitic stainless steels, (11-18% chromium) have applications in wellheads and tubing

where high yield strengths are not required.

2. Precipitation hardened stainless steels (12-18% chromium and 6-1 2% nickel) are useful for
downhole equipment or tools that require non-cold-worked, high yield strength materials. Some
of these materials, depending on composition, may be susceptible to SCC and SSC.

3. Duplex stainless steels (22-28% chromium and 5-7% nickel) have a resistance to chloride cracking that exceeds the resistance of low alloy austenitic stainless steels, but they may be susceptible to SSC or SCC in the presence of H2S.
4. Low alloy austentinic stainless steels (18% chromium and 10% nickel) offer better resistance to
SSC than martensitic stainless steels, but yield strengths are limited. These alloys are susceptible to SCC and pitting by chlorides.

5. High alloy austentinic stainless steels contain 20-30% chromium and 20-35% nickel. They
achieve strength through cold work and offer the best combination of corrosion resistance and
mechanical properties of all the CRAs. The cost for these alloys is high.
6. Nickel-based super alloys such as C-276, 718, and MP35N (cobaltlnickel-based) have better
resistance to H2S than most other types of commercial alloys but may be extremely expensive.
They do have the advantage of very high yield strengths.

7. Titanium alloys are slowly being introduced to the industry although the use is rare at the present
time.
CO2 Corrosion

CO2, one of the acid gases, is a very common contaminate in gas, oil and water production, even in
sweet reservoirs. CO2 corrosion of steel is usually a localized corrosion that takes the form of pits of
various sizes. Liquid water is necessary for CO2 corrosion to take place.43 The typical corrosion product of the CO2 reaction is ferrous carbonate.a Dissolved carbon dioxide content is a function of pressure and temperature and pH is much less important. Corrosion increases for increasing carbon
dioxide content.

Pitting produces severe penetration. Outside of the affected areas, the corrosion rate might be limited
and the transition from an affected to an unaffected area can be very abrupt. The action of CO2 attack
has been described as both chemical and physical through e r o ~ i o n Erosion
. ~ ~ ~ can
~ ~ accelerate the
overall corrosion rate by a hundredfold or more by removal of protective scales, oxides and corrosion
inhibitor films. Even for CO2, however, the increase in rates usually is in the area of five to ten
The addition of CO2 gas to water can reduce the pH to a value below 4, promoting acid attack. CO2
corrosion from chemical attack has been generally effectively controlled through the use of 13%
chrome tubulars.

6-11

Although CO2 corrosion and stress sulfide cracking have nothing in common when both corrosion factors are present in a well, control of both forms of corrosion may be accomplished by using a corrosion-resistant alloy to block CO2 attack and a reduced hardness to prevent SSC. Choosing a 13%
chromium steel that has a hardness below 22 Rockwell hardness-C, (LSO tubing), should also be
effective.
One severe drawback to using the 13% chromium steels is that they exhibit very limited resistance to
pitting during storage where air and chloride are present (seacoasts). This type of corrosion can much
more significant inside the pipe, particularly if condensation inside the pipe forms standing puddles.24
In the well, control of pitting corrosion of the 13% chrome steels relies on the deaeration of water.
The second type of severe corrosional effect produced by CO2 is largely physical -the erosional effect
produced by changes in fluid flow direction or an effect often described as ~ a v i t a t i o n . ~Erosion
~ * ~ ~is* ~ ~
the increase in the rate of metal deterioration from the abrasive effects of a fluid flowing into or
through a pipe. Other sources of erosion may include entrained gas in liquids, liquid droplets in gas,
solids in any fluid, very high flow rates, or any restriction in the completion strings that causes a drastic change in the flow velocity of the produced fluids. Erosion may often lead to a removal of the effective inhibitor, corrosion film, or reactant film. Severe cases can be identified by grooves or rounded
pits or holes that are usually smooth and lie along the direction of flow. Removal of a protective inhibitor or corrosion oxide film takes place when the strain on the film or corrosion oxide layer exceeds the
strain for the failure of the film. Erosion by solids and droplets may also affect the tenacity of the film
on an exposed surface. The failure of a corrosion oxide layer takes considerably longer than the failure for most film-forming materials.
Squeezing or continuous injection of inhibitors may not be cost effective if the completion string ID is
smaller than the minimum ID required to prevent erosion. Ifthis principle is violated, the film may be
continuously stripped off, even at high loading rates. Not all inhibitor films react in the same manner to
stripping by erosion; a few products offer very good performance in high velocity applications.
Other Factors

The presence of oxygen either as dissolved or entrained gas substantially increases the corrosion,
Figure 6.4.2 In almost all fluid handling systems, oxygen must be removed prior to injection of water or
shipment of the fluids by pipeline.
The pH of the water and the velocity of the water influence the corrosion attack. The chart in
Figure 6.5 illustrates the relative corrosion of flowing and nonflowing fluids versus the fluid pH. The
velocities shown in the graph are for water velocities of 3 to 7 ft per second. Below 3 FPS, corrosion is
reduced at pHs above 7. Notice for the flowing case that there is very little corrosion in waters with a
pH above 7 (basic). In these high pH waters, iron is almost insoluble, so the byproducts of a corrosion
reaction cannot be swept away from the corrosion site and the corrosion reaction is stopped.
The amount of water in the production is also a factor in corrosion. Water cuts below 25% are likely to
cause less corrosion than water cuts above 45%, especially at pHs below 7. As water cut increases,
the tendency for a steel surface to be oil wet decreases. Corrosion is very low for most oil wet surfaces and very high for most water wet surfaces. Since most wells are at least very slightly deviated,
the water caused corrosion damage may be confined to a trench in the low side of the pipe. In wells
where the flow rate in the tubing is not high enough to keep all the liquids moving at near the same
velocity, the water may reflux (up and down with gas rate changes) in the low side, creating a serious
corrosion trench even at very low water cuts. Inspection with caliper or electromagnetic surveys (measures metal loss through field generation and interruption techniques) can usually spot the trench if
one exists. Water can be produced and carried as an emulsion (entrained water) at flow velocities of
3-1/2 to 5 fps.

6-12

5
10
15
20
CARBON DIOXIDE PPM

25

(Endearn, 1989, Champion Chem.)

Figure 6.4:

Effect of dissolved oxygen on relative corrosion rate.

RELATIVE CORROSION VS pH L VELOCITT

CORROSION-EROSION

7-

11

12

10
8
ALKALINE -pH-

4
ACIDIC

(Endearn, 1989, Champion Chem.)

Figure 6.5:

Relationship of velocity of water and pH to corrosion.

Corrosion by Stimulation Acids

The use of stimulation acids such as HCI and HCVHF create severe problems in the specialty tubulars. Special problems of selective effects of inhibitor^,^^ pitting and intergranular attack,47 detrimental
influence of added organics,48i49and increased corrosion of the fluoride ion,50 require special inhibitors and special inhibition techniques for the high allow steels. The primary attack of the steels by acid
is severe pitting and intergranular attack that is difficult to control with inhibitors. Localized pitting may
be severe enough to ruin a section of the string.
Acid inhibitors work in the same manner as other corrosion inhibitors; by filming and passivating the
surface. The HCI and HCVHF acids are much more severe environments than other types of corrosion
and the inhibitors for these uses are specially blended and have much shorter effective life spans.

6-13

Also, presence of mutual solvents, alcohols, oil solvents and surfactants in the acid may alter or
destroy the effectiveness of some inhibitors.
Some of the expensive super alloys, such as the 13-chrome materials, may be especially sensitive to
HCVHF acid attack and special inhibitors are required.
Destruction of Elastomers

The steels used in the tubulars and well equipment are not the only materials susceptible to corrosion.
The elastomers (plastics and rubbers) used in the seals are also affected by the well fluids and must
be carefully selected to avoid problems. The attack on elastomers by gas is usually by swelling or blistering,5 both involve invasion of the elastomer by the gas. Rapid release of the pressure around a
gas permeated seal will likely cause explosive decompression and destruction of at least the outer
layer, the sealing edge, of the seal. Surprisingly, although gas permeation of a seal can destroy the
seal when pressure is released, the seal may function adequately before pressure release. Reaction
of various liquids to elastomer seals depends on seal type and position, temperature, liquid type, pressure, previous seal contamination and the presence of some lubricants used for tool assembly.52 In
general, nitrile seals are used for most general purpose applications where oil contact is necessary.
Other compounds such as the fluorinated elastomers (e.g., Viton) are available for contact with aromatic solvents (xylene and toluene). Other specialty compounds are available for specific, highly corrosive conditions or contact with powerful solvents; however, seal cost increases quickly with the more
exotic elastomer compounds. Some metal-to-metal seals are being offered where elastomer destruction is most severe.53
Microbial Corrosion

Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) active corrosive influence of the attached (sessile) bacteria c o l o n i e ~ . The
~ * ~ problems
~
are two fold; the colonies cover areas of steel, blocking corrosion
inhibitors from reaching the pipe surface, and the waste products of the colonies are often very corrosive in the protected areas under a colony. The sulfate reducing bacteria, SRBs, are the most detrimental, with the capability of souring wellbores and parts of reservoirs with H2S. Bacteria are
controlled by cleaning the water and treating with bactericides.
Nonmetallic Tubulars

As an alternative to steel casing with its problems with corrosion, fiberglass casing, tubing and rods
are being applied in some ~ e l l sThe
. ~advantages
~ ~ ~ ~ of the plastic materials are excellent resistance
to most forms of water related corrosion and some scale and paraffin deposition. Most applications
have been in shallow, low pressure wells, where high strength is not needed; however, new placement
techniques and plastic formulations are stretching limits of application.
Predictive Techniques and Inspection Devices

Monitoring the rate of corrosion is of critical importance to determine when to repair or replace equipment and to judge the effectiveness of corrosion control techniques on well e q ~ i p m e n t . A~ system~-~~
atic examination of the produced fluid chemistry, operating conditions and failures can describe the
potential for further failure.55 Monitoring of corrosion in the well uses several logging techniques to
monitor abrasion (and other wear), pitting and surface corrosion.
The data from produced fluid analysis includes ion analysis, pH, gas type and content. It can be used
with computed based predictive models to establish a general potential for corrosion in the well. Corrosion coupons inserted into the well stream can verify the predictive results and help evaluate the
effect of an inhibitor. Sections of test pipe are also used, normally in surface piping, to evaluate
selected metals.

6-14

When a corrosion related failure occurs, it is most important that the cause of the failure be determined. The analysis of corrosion products and the characteristic corrosion pattern can usually determine the type of corrosion that caused the failure. Hardness tests, microscopic examination, and
chemical analysis of the failed and unaffected surfaces are also tools of identifi~ation.~~
To monitor the corrosion rate and general condition of the tubulars in the well, a set of instruments are
used that provide data for comparisons with earlier readings to arrive at a corrosion or erosion rate.
These tools include multifingered c a l i p e r ~probes
, ~ ~ for measuring anodic activity,57induction tools to
measure pipe mass,58magnetic devices,59 sonic tools that measure pipe thickness,60and some
experimental tools that locate cracks in the pipe.60 These tools will establish a rate of corrosion or
wear when the results from several regular runs are compared.

Erosion
Surface erosion from solid particles in a high velocity produced fluid stream is normally associated
with unstable formations such as unconsolidated sands. Other occurrences of erosion include cases
of choke and tree loss following rapid back flow of wells after fracturing. The common denominator is
the high flow velocity.
Maximum velocities that can be tolerated in a situation will depend on the flowing fluid and other factors including foaming or emulsifying tendency, solids and entrained gas. Mechanical limitations in the
piping design or metering apparatus may also influence the maximum permissible flow rate.
Although some information exists that a corrosion inhibitor film is removable by high velocity flow,2i61
other authors offer evidence of successful inhibitor film performance at mass velocities of up to
100 Wsec with abrasion where inhibitor was continuously present.62 In any design where flow rates
will be high, a testing program should be used to identify the best method of corrosion protection.
The concept of critical velocity for flow of fluids with no solids in sizing of piping is covered in API RP14E.63 In general, the limits for dry crude flow velocity in pipe is about 30 to 35 fps (ft per second) and
for wet crude, the maximum velocity is 20 to 25 fps. At faster flow rates, some steel may be lost to
abrasion from the clean liquids. In some inhibitor protected systems, the limit of fluid velocity is often
much higher than set by the API equation.

V
P
C
C
C
C

= maximum velocity to avoid corrosion

= fluid density in pounds per cubic ft

= operating constant
= 100 to 125 for long life projects
= 160 for short life projects
= 150 to 300 for projects with good inhibitor filming

The validity of the RP-14E equation has been debated by Craig68-70and Smart,71 and a version of
Craigs information is relayed in the following information.
The erosion rate of any metal surface is strongly controlled by the presence and hardness of naturally
occurring (but metal-composition related) oxide or sulfide film. This film, which depending on composition, can be much harder than the pure metal surface, is one of the main factors that reduce erosion
(and some forms of chemical corrosion).

6-15

Presence of mist droplets in the stream can destroy the natural or added inhibitor barriers and rapidly
increase corrosion. Actual abrasive induced failures of the pipe depend on the entrained droplets or
solids in the gas as well as the density of the gas. Estimates of the densities and good design velocities are contained in Figure 6.6. For further information, refer to the Oil Field Corrosion Detection and
Control Handbook, by Endean, available from Champion Chemicals Inc., Houston.

(Endeam, 1989, Champion Chem.)

Figure 6.6:

Empirically derived curve of suitable design velocities

for flow of liquid and gas in tubing in vertical wells.

The API RP-14E equation is a quasi-rigorous attempt to determine critical velocity for general purpose
projects. Craig 68 proposed flow ranges for a modification of the RP-14E equation, proposed by Griffith and Rabinowicx (1985), where the C factor was calculated. The calculated value of C was based
on actual well conditions. The equation was only very slightly different:

vc = Cp37,
but the C was dependent on flowing fluid and pipe metallurgy, rather than a range of operating constants. When using chemical resistant alloys such as stainless and some nickel based materials
(especially those containing Chromium), the stable range of the C factor in the equation would be in
the range of 160 to 300. The 160 to 300 range for CRA tubulars is well proven infield performance for
long lived projects.
The ultimate value of C is then dependent on alloy composition, oxide or sulfide layer composition,
and flowing fluid composition (H2S, CO2, etc.). The layer composition and fluid resistance would also
change with temperature and impact resistance. Craig proposed a further modification of the equation
to allow input of the oxide hardness layer:

6-16

where P is the measured hardness of the oxide layer in kg/mm2 and p is fluid density in Ib/ft3. The use
of such an equation for calculations is limited at the present time by available data on hardness, P.
Craig offers the following explanation: for Ti alloys, using a hardness of 1,000kglmm2 for titanium
dioxide (Ti02) film formed on the alloy, the C factor would be 189.However, if aluminum oxide (aI2O3)
were incorporated into the oxide of any alloy so it was the predominate film, then P E 200 kg/mm2and
C = 255. Conversely, if a SS or Ni-based alloy containing Cr is exposed to a high H2S environment,
then the film could be predominately Cr2S3, with P - 480 kg/mm2 and C would drop to 138l (with data
from A.A. Ivanko Handbook of Hardness),

Impingement of particle laden fluids on a screen, casing wall, choke, or other surface in the well will
result in some erosion, regardless of the velocity flow. Erosion is usually only severe however, when
the fluid flow velocity is high enough to impact the solid particles on the surface with enough force to
abrade the metal or the natural or man-made coating on the metal surface.
Well completion decisions in wells with solids erosion problems may take one or more of three routines: (1)decrease the flowing liquid velocity with larger perforations, larger wellbores and larger tubing, (2)use hardened blast joints to slow the rate of erosion, and (3)control the solids with gravel
packs and screens.
If the erosion problem is slight, blast joints represent the cheapest methods of control. If erosion is
severe, the producing pays are usually gravel packed.

The erosion rate of any surface exposed to fluids that contain solids depends on the size, roundness,
and composition of the solids, the amount of solids in the flow stream, the velocity of the flowing fluid,
the shape of the flow path and the hardness of the metal layer exposed to the fluid. The worst erosion
conditions are created when sand grain sized (0.01 to O.l),particles of high density materials rapidly
strike the metal surface at angles of about 45to 95.If the energy of the impact is sufficient to dislodge or break the oxide layer, then erosion and some forms of corrosion will be accelerated.

Corrosion References
1. Uhlig, H. H.: Corrosion Handbook
2. Endean, H. J.: Oilfield Corrosion Detection and Control, Champion Chemicals, Houston, 1989.

3. Tuttle, R. N.: Corrosion in Oil and Gas Production, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July
1987),pp. 756-762.
4. Cron, C. J. and G. A. Marsh: Overview of Economic and Engineering Aspects of Corrosion in Oil
and Gas Production, Journal of Petroleum Technology (June 1983),pp. 1033-1041.
5. Patton, C. C.: Applied Water Technology, Book, Campbell Petroleum Services, Norman, OK,

1986.
6. Peabody, A. W.: Control of Pipeline Corrosion, Nat. Assoc. of Corrosion Eng., Houston, TX,
(1967).
7. Rice, P. W.: Selecting Metallic Materials For Downhole Service, World Oil, (Nov. 1989),pp. 7076.
8. Comments from Jack Smart, Welchem.

6-17

9. Smart, J. S.Ill: A Review of Erosion Control in Oil and Gas Production, NACE Paper for presentation at the 1990 Annual Meeting, Las Vegas.
10. Hamby, T. W.: Development of High-pressure Sour Gas Technology, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (May 1981), pp. 792-798.
11. Currie, D. M.: The Use of Corrosion Resistant Alloys in Sour Gas Surface Production Facilities,
Paper OCT 6111 presented at the 21st Annual OTC in Houston, May 1-4, 1989, pp. 583-588.
12. Corbett, R. A. and W. S.Morrison: Comparative Corrosion Resistance of Some High-Nickel,
Chromium-Molybdenum Alloys, Materials Performance (February 1989), pp. 56-59.
13. Bradley, W. B. and J. E. Fontenot: The Prediction and Control of Casing Wear, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, (February 1975), pp. 233-237.
14. Jasinski, R.: Corrosion of N80-Type Steel by C02/Water Mixtures, Corrosion-NACE, Vol. 43,
No. 4, April 1987, pp. 214-218.
15. Bowman, R. W.; A. K. Duniop and J. P. Tralmer: CO/CO2 Cracking in Inert Gas - Miscible Flooding, Materials Performance (April 1977), pp. 28-32.
16. Storey, W. D.: Hydrogen Sulfide Corrosion of Metals, Oilweek, May 20, 1963, pp. 721-724.
17. Littmann, E. S.: Control of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion in Oilfield Production Equipment, Paper Spe 16909 presented at the 62nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, September 27-30, 1987.
18. Berkowitz, B. J., Horowitz, H.. H.: The Roles Of H2S in the Corrosion and Hydrogen Embrittlement of Steel J. Electrochem. Soc., (March 1982), 468-73.
19. Wilhelm, S.M. and R. D. Kane: Selection of Materials for Sour Service in Petroleum Production, Journal of Petroleum Technology (October 1986), pp. 1051-1061.
20. Merrick, R. D.: An Overview of Hydrogen Damage to Steels at Low Temperatures, Materials
Performance (February 1989), pp. 53-55.
21. Kane, R. D.: Special Tubulars Find Expanding Role, Petroleum Engineer (March 1988), pp. 4346.
22. Parkins, R. N.; A. Alexandridou and P. Majumdar: Stress corrosion cracking of C-Mn steels in
environments containing carbon dioxide, Materials Performance (October 1986), pp. 20-27.
23. Ogundele, G. I. and W. E. White: Some Observations on the Corrosion of Carbon Steel in Sour
Gas Environments - Effects of H2S and H2/CO2/CH4/C~H8
Mixtures, Corrosion - NACE, Vol. 42,
NO.7, July 1986, pp. 398-408.
24. Crolet, J.: Acid Corrosion in Wells (CO2, H2S) - Metallurgical Aspects, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (August 1983), pp. 1553-1558.

25. Craig, 6.: How to Determine Erosion-Corrosion Resistance of Chromium Steels, Petroleum
Engineer (March 1989), pp. 24-27.

6-18

26. Videm, K. and A. Dugstad: Corrosion of Carbon Steel in an Aqueous Carbon Dioxide Environment; Part 1 : Solution Effects, Materials Performance (March 1989),pp. 63-67.
27. Videm, K. and A. Dugstad: Corrosion of Carbon Steel in an Aqueous Carbon Dioxide Environment; Part 2: Film Formation, Materials Performance (April 1989),pp. 46-50.
28. Roche, M. and J. P. Samaran: Pipeline Coatings Performance Field Experience of an Operating
Petroleum Company, Paper NACE 28 presented at the Corrosion 87 Conference, San Francisco, March 9-13.
29. Bellassai, S.J.: Coating Fundamentals, Materials Performance (December 1972),pp. 55-58.
30. Banach, J. L.: Pipeline Coatings - Evaluation, Repair, and Impact on Corrosion Protection
Design and Cost, Paper Nace 29 presented at the Corrosion 87 Conference, San Francisco,
March 9-13.
31. Burton, S.A. and R. Ross: Corrosion Protection with Elastomers; An investigation of cathodic
protection effects on elastomeric coated pipelines and risers, Corrosion Prevention & Control
(April 1987),pp. 45-50.

32. Evans, S.:Cost Effective Treatment Looks at Entire Production System, World Oil, (Jan 1990),
pp. 105-107.
33. Annand, R. R.; H. M. Hilliard and W. S.Tait: Factors in the Corrosivity of Seawater Used for
Secondary Petroleum Recovery, Oil Field Subsurface Injection of Water, pp 41 -53.
34. Weeter, R. F.: Conditioning of Water by Removal of Corrosive Gases, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (February 1972),pp. 181-1 84.
35. Alexander, R. A.: Environmental Method Controls CorrosionlCracking in Mobile Bay, J. Petroleum Technology, (Jan. go), pp. 62-66.
36. Simmons, E. J.: Cathodic Protection of Oil Well Casings, SPESC, 1968,pp. 245-255.
37. Smith, H. M.; M. F. Bird and R. H. Penna: Factors Affecting the Cathodic Disbonding of Pipe
Coatings, Materials Performance (Noamber 1988),pp. 19-23.
38. Houghton, C. J. and R. V. Westermark: North Sea Downhole Corrosion - Identifying the Problem; Implementing the Solutions, J. of Pet. Tech., (January 1983),pp. 239-246.
i

39. Frank, W. J.: Heres how to deal with corrosion problems in rod-pumped wells, Oil and Gas
Journal, May 31,1976,pp. 63-72.
40. Reinhardt, J. R.: Phase diagrams can locate gas-condensate-well corrosion, Oil and Gas Journal, April 4,1988,pp. 41-47.
41. Akrarn, N. F., Butler, J. C.: Corrosion in Sajaa Field, Proceedings of the 4th Middle East Corrosion Conference, Bahrain Society of Engineers, Bahrain, January 1988,pp. 535-550.
42. Material Requirements, Sulfide Stress Cracking Resistant Metallic materials for Oil Field Equipment, National Association of Corrosion Engineers Standard MR-01-75.
43. Hilliard, H. M.: Corrosion Control in Cotton Valley Production, Paper Spe 9062 presented at the
SPE Cotton Valley Symposium, Tyler, May 21,1980.

6-19

44. Carbon, H. A.: Corrosion in Natural Gas - Condensate Wells, industrial and Engineering
Chemistry, March 1949, pp. 644-645.
45. Bradburn, J. B., Kalra, S.K.: Corrosion Mitigation - A Critical Facet of Well Completion Design,
J. Pet. Tech., (Sept. 1983), pp. 1617-1623.
46. Garber, J. D. and M. Kantour: How High-Alloy Tubulars React in Acidizing Environments,
Petroleum Engineer (July 1984), pp. 60-68.
47. Burke, P. A.; J. L. Dawson; G. Bailey and R. C. Woollam: Corrosion of Chromium Steels in
Inhibited Acids, Paper NACE 41 presented at the Corrosion 87 Conference, San Francisco,
March 9-13.
48. Jasinski, R.; W. W. Frenier, and S.Grannan: Inhibiting HCI Corrosion of High Chrome Tubular
Steels, Paper NACE 188 presented at the Corrosion 88 Conference, St. Louis, March 21-25.
49. Walker, M. L. and T. H. McCoy: Inhibition of High Alloy Tubulars I1- Effect of Fluoride Ion and
Acid Strength, Paper Nace 189 presented at the Corrosion 88 Conference, St. Louis, March 2125.
50. Walker, M. L. and T. H. McCoy: Effect and Inhibition of Stimulation Acids on Corrosion Resistant
Alloys, Paper Nace 154 presented at the Corrosion 86 Conference, Houston, March 17-21.
51 Spriggs,

D.: Equipment Selection Critical to EOR Operations Pet. Eng. Intl., (Nov. 1987), 28-

30.
52. Moore, N. B.; J. Hellums and R. T. S.Chang: 0-Ring Seal Failure Mechanisms, Paper OTC
6131 presented at the 21st Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 1-4, 1989,
pp. 83-94.

53. Haeberle, T. and P. J. Kovach: Material Considerations for High-Deformation Sealing Systems
in H2S and Chloride Environments, Paper OTC 6084 presented at the 21st Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, May 1-4, 1989, pp. 403-41 0.
54. Chen, E. Y. and R. B. Chen: Monitoring Microbial Corrosion in Large Oilfield Water Systems,
Journal of Petroleum Tech. (July 1984), pp. 1171-1176.
55. Walker, C. K. and G. C. Maddux: Corrosion-Monitoring Techniques and Applications, Materials
Performance (May 1989), pp. 64-70.

56. Stephens, R. M. and M. F. Mohamed: Corrosion Monitoring and Inhibition in Khuff Gas Wells,
Journal of Petroleum Technology (October 1985), pp. 1861-1866,
57. Myers, R. D.; G. R. Cameron and D. B. Lebsack: An Evaluation of Corrosion Monitoring Techniques for Measuring Corrosion Inhibitor Performance in Sour Gas Gathering Systems, Paper
CIM 88-39-1 16 presented at the 39th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM
held in Calgary, June 12-16, 1988.

58. Iliyan, I. S.;W. J. Cotton and G. A. Brown: Test Results of a Corrosion Logging Technique Using
Electromagnetic Thickness and Pipe Analysis Logging Tools, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(April 1983), pp. 801-808.
59. Moyer, M. C. and B. A. Dale: Methods for Evaluating the Quality of Oilfield Tubular Inspections,
Journal of Petroleum Technology (January 1986), pp. 88-96.

6-20

60. Kiefner, J. F.; R. W. Hyatt and R. J. Eiber: Metal-loss, crack-detection tools targeted, Technology, April 24, 1989, pp. 69-71.
61. Salama, M. M., Venkatesh, E. S.: Evaluation of API-RP-14E Erosional Velocity Limitations for
Offshore Gas Wells, Offshore Tech. Conf., Paper 4485, Houston, 1983.
62. Jones, L. W.: Corrosion and Water Technology, Oil and Gas Consultants International, Inc.,
Tulsa, 1988.
63. API Recommended Practice for Design and Installation of Offshore Production Platform Piping
Systems, API RP-14E.
64. Altunbay, M., Kalra, S.K.: Nomograph Helps Predict Erosional Control, World Oil, (March
1988), pp. 43-45.
65. Oney, C. L. Fiberglass Line Pipe Requires Special Care, Pet. Eng. Intl., (Nov. 1987), 34-36.
66. Oney, C. L. Special Considerations Needed for Fiberglass Tubing, Pet. Eng. Intl., (Dec. 1987),
29, 30.
67. Kane, R. D., Greer, J. B.: Sulfide Stress Cracking of High-Strength Steels in Laboratory and Oilfield Environment, J. Pet. Tech., November 1977, pp. 1483-1488.
68. Craig, B. D.: Predicting Critical Erosion-Corrosion Limits of Alloys for Oil and Gas Production,
Material Performance, pp. 59-60, September, 1998.
69. Craig, B. D.: Critical Velocity Examined for Effects of Erosion-Corrosion, Oil and Gas J., pp. 99,
Vol. 5, No. 27, 1985.
70. Craig, B. D.: Equation Clarifies Critical Velocity Calculation, Pet. Eng. Int., pp. 42, Oct. 1990.
71. Smart, J.: The Meaning of the API RP14E Formula for Erosion Corrosion in Oil and Gas Production, Corrosion/91, paper 85, Houston, NACE, 1991.

6-21

Appendix 6.A
Velocity limits for clean liquid erosion in tubulars can be described with an equation from API RP 14E:

"@

0'/2

(6.11)

where:
V,

C
p

= maximum allowable velocity, Wsec, above which erosion would be expected to occur

for a clean, solids free fluid.

= a constant, typically 100 to 125. 100 recommended for continuous flow, 125 recommended for intermittent flow.
= density of fluid at flowing pressure and temperature, Ib/fL3

From this equation, it is seen that erosion for clean liquids would be unlikely at normal flow rates.
Presence of gas and solids can quickly change the erosion attack and damage may occur at much
lower flow rates. When gas in the produced fluid is responsible for erosion, the solution is usually a
reduction in rate or the use of larger id tubulars. With tubing strings that are single sized, the velocity
at the top of the string is a maximum for the well. Tapered strings, with smaller diameter tubing near
the bottom of the well may have the maximum velocity downhole. This velocity may be estimated by
calculating an estimate of the flow rate of the gas and then dividing by the tubing area.

where:

Q
R
Z

= gas flow rate mcf/d

= absolute temperature,

O F

+ 460"

= compressibility factor
Z estimates: Z = 1 if P c 1000 psi, Z = 0.9 if P > 1000 psi

P
= operating pressure at the depth of interest in psi
= gas flow rate, cfs
F,
The gas velocity, V; in feet per second is then the rate divided by the area of tubing id.

V=

6
tubing inside area in ft2

If the pressure is not known, it can be estimated by subtracting the gradient of the gas from the surface pressure to the proper depth. This process, as detailed in Figure 8.8 is not highly accurate since
it uses the shut in wellhead pressure and a static gradient instead of a flowing wellhead pressure and
a flowing fluid gradient. It will only work for dry gas. Much better estimates are available from multiphase flow programs.

6.A-22

Chapter 7: infiow Performance, Tubing Selection,

and Artificial Lift
Maximizing production from a well depends on reducing unneeded pressure drop all along the flow
path; from the heart of the reservoir to the pipeline. Completion design should focus on the areas of
most common pressure drop, in this case, the tubular flow path. The objective is to design a flow path
that will a) transport both gas and liquids (without allowing liquid dropout) and; b) will minimize pressure drop. Since small tubulars are better to transport liquids with available gas flow and large tubulars are more efficient at reducing pressure drop, there is often a compromise needed or an alternate
life mechanism required. Complicating the problem is the expansion of gas, resulting in a dynamically
changing flow path from top to bottom. To satisfy both requirements, many strings are designed as
tapered strings; small ID on bottom and large on top
The performance of a producing well and the correct tubing size depends on three sets of fluid behavior conditions. There is one set of conditions controlling fluid entry into the well, a different set controlling flow of mixtures from bottom to top and another set describing flow through back pressure devices
at the surface. The first is inflow performance, the second is vertical lift performance, and the third is
back pressure response from the choke. Often the parameters set for one of the three performance
areas will directly affect the execution of the others. A large bottom hole pressure, for example, will
assist in vertical flow but will act as backpressure to reduce inflow.
Effective use of available pressure is the key to an optimum completion. Pressure drops are necessary for well operation. For any steady-state flow, the sum of: the drawdown, the pressure drop from
bottom to top in the tubing, and the pressure drop across the choke is equal to the difference between
the flowing pressure of the well and the surface flow line pressure. Modeling the various pressure
drops to determine optimum production rates is normally done with a nodal analysis simulator. Several
runs on the simulator will generally pinpoint problem areas and the best operation procedures.

Inflow Performance
The inflow performance of a well describes the flow capacity of a well vs. the drawdown pressure at a
certain time for given set of conditions. The data for an inflow performance relationship curve, IPR, is
gathered by producing the well at various drawdown and measuring the fluids production rate. Normally, the liquid rates are plotted separately and as total production. The curve, Figure 7.1, ideally
would be straight line as in this example plot from VogeI.* The productivity index, PI (or J),is:

where:
PI
= Productivity Index, barrels oil per day per psi
(9J = oil flow rate, bpd
= maximum potential flow, bpd
Pr
= reservoir pressure, psi
P d = bottomhole well flowing pressure, psi

The PI is the inverse of the slope of the line shown in Figure 7.1. Inflow data, however, are rarely
straight since two phase liquid flow and gas flow are often combined. Under these conditions, the data
forms a curve similar to the general curve in Figure 7.2. When curvature exists in the inflow data, a
single PI does not exist because the value of the PIvaries continuously with the inverse of the slope.*

7-1

The plotted curve is the inflow performance relationship of a well. Although the straight line approximation has limitations, especially when applied to two-phase flow, it is still used because of the difficulty in calculating solutions.2 The process has been programmed for computer analysis and these
solutions represent the best solutions to the design equipments. GLRs, depletion and water cut
change the shape of the curves. Back pressure on the well and the other factors influencing inflow,
vertical flow, and back pressure also have large effects.

. Drawdown Pr -

hf

Max. Prcd
Rate,

Froducing Rate
Figure 7.1:

Straight line inflow performance relationship.

MMfQ LIZL

Figure 7.2:

(m)

(Buhidma)

Inflow performance relationship for a well producing below the bubble point.

Tubing Design
If there is sufficient pressure, flowing is undoubtedly the simplest and cheapest method of operation.
In some cases, it may also result in production rates higher than can be achieved by many lift methods
and certainly less expensive. Vertical flow in the tubing may move in a variety of flow regimes. In most
flowing wells, the fluids move with some type of two-phase flow. For a well with oil above the bubblepoint and a high solution GOR,the regimes of flow will vary greatly. At the bottom of the well, the oil
moves as a single phase with no free gas. As the vertical rise is initiated, some gas starts to break out
of solution, initiating foam flow. With decreasing depth, the bubbles form larger gas pockets, decreas-

7-2

ing oil density and pushing liquid ahead of it in slug flow. With continued gas expansion (and higher
gas velocity), the oil is a film moving along the walls of the pipe. At the surface, the gas velocity is
great enough to pick the oil up and carry it as a mist. This type of natural gas lift is the most common
form of flow in flowing wells.
The keys to the vertical movement of liquids are pressure, fluid densities and the factors influencing
flow velocity in the tubing. Any selected combination of liquid flow rate and tubular size will result in a
certain velocity. The larger the tube id, the slower the velocity. As tube size increases, the velocity
may decrease to a point where gas breaks away from the liquids, creating unstable flow behavior, followed by liquid loading. When enough liquid accumulates, the well dies (ceases flowing). Selection of
tubular size is based on preserving enough velocity to produce the well without holding a backpressure on the formation. The right tubing size for a high pressure gas well with no water production, will
not be the right tubing size a few years later when pressures and gas flow rates have declined and
water is increasing.697The best compromise is to run a large string when the well is new and to
replace the string with smaller tubulars later when the well has to be worked over, Figure 7.3. Smaller
strings, including coiled tubing, can be run inside the larger strings without pulling the larger string, if
rig cost factors make a workover economically unattractive. In high pressure, deep wells where the
lifting effects of gas are poor near the bottom of the well, multiple sizes of tubing may be run on one
string. A Yapered string may use 2-3/8 in. tubing at the bottom, 2-7/8 in. tubing in the middle of the
string and 3-1/2 in. tubing near the top. The purpose of the tapered string is to maintain similar velocities over the entire tubing string.

01
0

so0

-1Ooo

Is00

2ao

PO0

DWs

Figure 7.3:

1
3Ooo

(Kimmel)

Effect of tubing size on the early and late years in

production of a well. Note that the larger size tubing accounts for more production early when rates
are high (less frictional backpressure) but the
smaller tubing can be unloaded easier (resists
heading) as pressure drops.

Figure 7.4 (Patton and Abbott) shows the tubing performance curve, TPC, and IPR curve matches for
several different wells. In these cases, the tubing size was varied using 1-1/2 in., 2-3/8 in., 2-7/8 in.
and 3-1/2 in. nominal tubing sizes (OD). The tubing length, wellhead pressure, and GOR were held
constant. In the plot, which shows three wells with different IPR curves, the best well, A, has the best

7-3

IPR despite lower reservoir pressure. The well should flow at the following flow rates with the various
sizes of tubing in the well.
#1

Well A
Flow Rate (BPD)
L/1
944

Tubing
1-1/2

2-318
2-718
3-112

1355
.~
2222

#3

#2
Well B
Flow Rate (BPD)

Well C
Flow Rate (BPD)

122

244

1211
1466
1756

400
377
420

(Patton & Abott, 1981)

Figure 7.4:

Effect of tubing size on the performance of several wells

with different IPR curves.

Well No. 2 , with a higher reservoir pressure but a lower IPR, also has increasing flow rates for the various tubing sizes. Well No. 3 is an unusual case of a well with a high flowing wellhead pressure but a
relatively low flow rate. This is often the case in lower permeability formations. In this particular
instance, the smaller tubing will provide nearly the same flow rate as the larger tubing and will make
more efficient use of the reservoir gas for lifting the fluid production, especially over the entire life of
the well. Increasing water cut, wellbore impairment, or an increase in the back pressure on the well
may also cause severe reductions.
The use of pressure gradient curves for flowing wells is advantageous because for any flow rate at set
well conditions of tubing size, water cut, GLR, and fluid characteristics, one curve can be used to
describe all the points in the pressure-depth relationship. If two of the variable set; P~ Pwh,depth, are
known, the other can be obtained from the graph. The curves are available from Brown.8 Use of the
gradient curves is described by Patton & Abbotg In their example, the well has a PWh= 620 psi, tub-

7-4

ing length of 9160 ft, and GLR of 1000. Refer to Figure 7.5 for an example gradient curve for the following sequence of steps.

Actual
length
tublng

1
Pressure

ro

(Patton & Abott, 1981)

Figure 7.5:

Gradient curve for selecting tubing size.

1. Select the family of GLR curves corresponding to the correct tubing size, liquid characteristics,
and producing rate.
2. Find the GLR curve on that set of curves which corresponds to the GLR of the well.
3. Enter the graph from the top on the X-axis with the wellhead pressure and move down to where
the pressure line intersects the proper GLR curve. The wellhead pressure in these graphs is the
flowing wellhead pressure. The depth of the intercept (Y-axis) is the equivalent length of tubing
that will produce a pressure drop equal to the given flowing tubing pressure (-7220 ft).
4. From the intercept at the Y-axis, drop down the scale an equivalent depth corresponding to the
actual tubing length (9160 + 7220 = 16,380).

5. At the corrected depth (the tubing length equivalent), move right until the proper GLR curve is
intercepted. From this intercept, the reading on the pressure scale gives the bottomhole pressure required under the initial conditions (2720 psi).
If the bottomhole flowing pressure is known, the steps can be reversed to establish a PWhfor a certain
flow rate. These curves should be verified early in the life of the well while it will still flow.

After a set of gradient curves has been constructed or checked, pressures at various rates can be
obtained by plotting the flowing, downhole tubing pressure on a pressure vs. rate graph and connecting the points with a best fit curve. This construction is called the tubing performance curve, TPC. A
TPC gives the pressure required for any selected rate according to a given set of well performance
parameters of GLR, WOR, Pwh, and tubing ID and length. Since the flowing tubing pressure and rate
are dependent, ifthere is no intersection with an overplot of the IPR curve, the well cannot flow. This

7-5

is an easy first check of the need for a lift system for initial flow (optimizing production is a little different). Use of the tubing performance curves is as follows (from Patton and Abbott):
1. Draw the inflow performance curve for the total fluid production. If necessary, also drawn an
uphole IPR curve (if the pump is set high).
2. Estimate the produced fluid parameters such as water cut and GOR.
3. Draw a tubing performance curve from the gradient curve that matches the produced fluid

parameters.
4. Plot the tubing performance curve and the inflow performance curve on the same graph. The

TPC and the IPR will have a variety of possible intersections.

5. Curves that do not intersect, Figure 7.6, where the TPC is above IPR, indicates that the well will

not flow under the given conditions and artificial lift is required. For most well completions, this
will be the standard check before an artificial lift method is determined.

Q
Figure 7.6:

P
(Patton & Abott)

IPR Curve no intersection; lift required.

a. Curves that do not intersect on the graph but have the TPC below the IPR, Figure 7.7, indicate that flow will occur and a choke will be required to control production. The flow rates will
actually intersect if the curve is extended.

Uohole

\I
I
I
I

Figure 7.7:

(Patton & Abott)

IPR Curve intersection at far right. A choke is

required to control flow.

7-6

b. Curves that intersect at a low rate and have the TPC below the uphole IPR show the stable
rate at which the well will flow under the given conditions, Figure 7.8. The rate in this case
will be limited by pressure and artificial lift may be capable of improving production.

Figure 7.8:

C.

(Patton & Abott)

IPR Curve intersection shows that lift

could significantly increase production
from well.

Curves that intersect twice, once at low and once at high rate, Figure 7.9, with TPC below
the IPR indicate an area of unstable flow at the low intersection and stable flow rate in the
high intersection. If the well is not kicked off and flowing at the higher rate, it may drop to the
low rate and head (load up with liquid) and die. These wells are often gas lifted until a stable
flow rate is achieved and then gas injection may be reduced or stopped.

a
Figure 7.9:

m
(Patton 8. Abbott)

IPR Curve intersections at two points indicates that the well could heat at the lower
intersection.

6. The final step allows estimation of the effect of water cut on production rate. This requires developments of a TPC curve with varying water cuts for the tubing size, depth, and GOR that is given
for the well. The uphole IPR is overlayed to determine the producing rates for various water cuts.
The IPR is then adjusted for the change in flowing gradient between midformation and the end of
the tubing that accompanies the change. The IPR curve should also be adjusted for changing
reservoir pressure that accompanies the reservoir changes. Once these adjustments are made,
the TPC and IPRs must be replotted and step 5 initiated again to find the pressure differentials
required in the future. As one might expect, most of these functions are available as a computer
program or as part of a nodal analysis program for well optimization. In the nodal analysis programs, the entire system may be analyzed, piece-by-piece without losing sight of how one component affects the other.

7-7

As the reservoir pressure declines in any situation, the IPR curve of any well will tend to shift toward
the origin as shown in Figure 7.10. If the effect of water cut is added to the decline in reservoir pressure, which can happen when water flows in from a separate low pressure zone, the region of stable
flow in any particular IPR curve is driven toward the left. The well may become unstable and will not
continue to flow at high rates. If water can be excluded from the production, the well will continue to
flow even when the reservoir pressure has dropped very low. If the water cut is allowed to rise even a
few percentage points, the well may die.

(Patton & Abbott)

Figure7.10:

An example of declining IPR curve with

increasing production.

The IPR and TPC curves can be used for predicting the performance of wells. Using predictions generated in this manner, it is possible to economically justify workovers to shut off water or field pressure
maintenance in some situations.
Selection of the size of tubing in a well is extremely important from an economic benefit as well as a
lift benefit for the well. In many cases, a larger ID tubular than is commonly employed in deep gas
wells can increase productivity ~ubstantially.~
Heading

Most naturally flowing oil wells that are not on either natural or artificial pressure maintenance, reach
a stage in depletion when both gas and liquid flowing velocities are low. A heading well is characterized by large pressure fluctuations at every point along the tubing string.'' It produces alternately
large liquid slugs with relatively small amounts of gas and a small amount of liquid with a large amount
of gas. This type of inefficient use of the reservoir gas energy will ultimately lead to liquid buildup
within the wellbore causing the well to be killed by the hydrostatic gradient of its own produced liquid.
If heading is not determined as a problem in a well, expensive artificial lift equipment may be installed
too early and money wasted. Wells without packers are often candidates for heading.
Three types of heading are described in the literature: casing, formation and tubing. Casing and formation heading are very similar in their nature and occur by almost the same process. Both problems
exhibit large pressure and flow rate fluctuations and both require a relatively large space or volume
where the gas is allowed to separate from the liquid and accumulate. In the example of casing heading, this space is provided by the annulus, while in the formation, very large formations with high vertical permeability may achieve the same separation. Where the well has been completed with a packer
and tailpipe, only tubing heading may result since, with use of a proper depth tailpipe, the gas will usually break around the pipe and help lift the liquid.

7-8

Tubing Design

Three items are usually considered when designing a tubular configuration for a well: burst, collapse
and tension. Burst and collapse calculations are handled in the same way in tubing design as they are
in casing design. Tension calculations, however, should be designed differently for the tubing string.
Casing is normally designed in tension, with a safety factor of 1.6, where the tensile strength is
required only during running of the casing. Tubing should be designed with consideration given to pulling. The design of the tension forces on the tubing string should allow for the constant overpull
method. The amount of pull over the weight of the tubing up to the yield strength of the pipe at the top
of each section (of a given weight and diameter) is used as a maximum tensile force. If the tubing
becomes stuck on a trip, attempts can be made to free it without jeopardizing the pipe.
Artificial Lift

Selection of the tubing size in a flowing well or the tubing and artificial lift system in a lower pressure
well is one of the most important design segments in well completion. Design of the lift system affects
the economics of most projects.
Selection of artificial lift must account for two main considerations; the inflow performance of the well
and the capacity and operation of the lift system. The inflow performance is a function of the reservoir
and various production characteristics and the efficiency of the stimulation.11-16Ideally, each well in a
field would be drilled and tested prior to lift system selection. Because of the unproductive time
involved in this method, an estimate of flow is usually made from the first well tests. For most field
development wells, the lift system is on location, ready to be installed when the well is completed.
From the initial production appraisal, an inflow performance curve or set of curves is prepared as is
described in the section on inflow performance. To select the best lift system, a set of tubing intake
curves for each lift system should be made. The graphical solution for rate determination is taken at
the depth of the completion interval. The intersection of the tubing intake curve with the inflow performance relationship, IPR, curve is the flow rate expected for a particular method, Figure 12.1 .11~15*16
Other factors such as high GLRs and large volumes of water may alter the selection criteria. The first
intake curve for any well should be prepared assuming that the well will flow naturally. If the tubing
intake curve lies completely above the IPR curve, then the well will not flow, as seen previously in
Figure 7.6.
Preparation of the tubing intake curve must take into account all the restrictions from the bottom of the
tubing to surface facilities up to and including the separator. All losses are additive and the pressure
loss analysis begins at the separator and works down the well. In order to generate the tubing intake
curves for a flowing pressure vs. flow rate diagram, it is necessary to estimate flow rates to calculate
the intake pressures. Analysis of the system usually is centered at a solution point or node (hence;
nodal analysis). Solutions can then be made for optimization of the system by isolation of components: Figure 7.1 1. The nodal analysis of the lift components of a well can be done by hand, but is
much faster when a computer is used.
Rod pumping accounts for about 84% of U.S. wells on artificial lift, while 12% are on gas lift, 2% use
ESPs and the remaining methods (hydraulic piston, jet, plunger and others) combined account for
about 2Y0.l~Worldwide, the type of lift system varies with region and type of well. Gas lift and flowing
wells are more common in new, high production rate areas while various artificial lift systems are in
use elsewhere. Each of the systems has relative advantages and disadvantages as recorded by S.G.
Gibbs17 and modified and reported by Brown in Figures 7.12 and 7.13. Each of the common lift systems will be described in the following paragraphs. Basic design information is reported for the purpose of providing familiarization with the equipment.
The lift system response can be plotted against the IPR curve to help select the optimum unit for the
completion, Figure 7.14. This technique is usually a final comparison before economics are considered.

7-9

Figure 7.11:

(Brown & Lea)

Pressure drops possible in the total completion.

run.,
(Brown)

Figure 7.14: Tubing intake curves for various lift systems.

Rod Pump

The basic design of a rod pump system described here is just slightly modified from that of a classic
description by Gipson and Swaim.18 Operation of a rod pumped well encompasses several design
loads on the beam, rods, tubing, pump and gearbox, which must be understood before a design can
be ~ o m p l e t e d . ' ~Balanced
-~~
design in a rod pumping system is very important. If a part of a balanced
rod pumped system is strengthened, weakened, or made unnecessarily large, it may result in weakening a part elsewhere in the system.
The rod pump is a plunger with a two valve arrangement as shown in Figure 7.1 5.31 The standing
valve is a one-way valve at the bottom of the pump (allows flow from the wellbore to the pump but

7-10

Hydraulic Piston
Pumping

Rod Pumping
Relatively simple
system design.
Jnits easily
:hanged to other
Nells with minimum
:ost.
Efficient, simple
and easy for field
Deople to operate.
Applicable to slim
holes and multiple
mmpletions.
Can pump a well
down to very low
pressure (depth
and rate dependent).
System usually is
naturally vented for
gas separation and
fluid level soundings.
Flexible can
match displacement rate to well
capability as well as
declines.
Analyzable.
Can lift high temperature and viscous
oils.
Can use gas or
electricity as power
source.
Corrosion and
scale treatments
easy to perform.
Applicable to pump
off control if electrified.
Availability of different sizes.
Adjustable gear box
for Triplex offers
more flexibility.
Mixing power fluid
with waxy or viscous
crudes can reduce
viscosity.

'Not so depth limited

can lift large volumes from great
depths (500 BOD
(79.49 m3/d) from
15,000ft) (4572 m).
Have been installed
to 18,000 ft
(5486.4 m).
Crooked holes
present minimal
problem.
Unobtrusivein urban
locations.
Power source can
be remotely located.
Analyzable.
Flexible can usually match displacement to well's
capability as well as
declines.
Can use gas or electricity as power
source.
Downhole pumps
can be circulated out
in free systems.
Can pump a well
down to fairly low
pressure.
Applicable to multiple completions.
Closed system will
combat corrosion.
Easy to pump in
cycles by time clock.
Hollow sucker rods
are available for slim
hole completions
and ease of inhibitor
treatment.
Have pumps with
double valving that
pump on both
upstroke and downstroke.

Electric
Submersible
Pumping

Gas Lift

Can litt extremely

high volumes
(20,000 BPO +
(1 9,078.48 m3/d) in
shallow wells with
large casing. Currently lifting
120,000 B/D from
water supply wells
in Middle East with
600 HP units.
720 HP available.
1000 HP under
development.
Unobtrusive in
urban locations.
Simple to operate.
Easy to install
downhole pressure
sensor for teleme
tering pressure to
surface via cable.
Crooked holes
present no problems.
Applicable offshore.
Corrosion and
scale treatment
easy to perform.
Availability in different size.
Lifting cost for high
volumes generally
very IOW.

Can handle large

volume of solids
with minor problems.
Handles large volume in high P.I.
wells (continuous
lift) (50,000 BLPD) +
(7949.37 m31d).
Fairly flexible convertible from continuous to intermittent
to chamber or
plunger lift as well
declines.
Unobtrusive in
urban locations.
Power source can
be remotely located.
Easy to obtain
downhole pressures and gradients.
Lifting gassy wells is
no problem.
Sometimes serviceable with wireline
unit.
Crooked holes
present no problem.
Corrosion is not
usually adverse.
Applicable offshore.

Hydraulic Jet
Pump
ketrievable without
pulling tubing.
Very inexpensive
installation.
Automatically
keeps tubing clean
of paraffin, scale.
Applicable for high
gas oil ratio wells.
Can be used in conjunction with intermittent gas lift.
Can be used to
unload liquid from
gas wells.

Plunger Lift
ketrievable without
pulling tubing.
Has no moving
parts.
No problem in deviated or crooked
holes.
Unobtrusive in
urban locations.
Applicable offshore.
Can use water as a
power source.
Power fluid does
not have to be so
clean as for hydraulic piston pumping.
Corrosion scale and
emulsion treatment
easy to perform.
Power source can
be remotely located
and can handle high
volumes to
30,000 B/D
(4769.62 m3/d).

Figure 7.12: Relative Advantages of Artificial Lift Systems

S. G. Gibbs (with Modifications by Brown)

stops reverse flow) and the traveling valve is another one way valve that is attached to the rod string.
As the plunger is lifted by the rods on the upstroke, the traveling valve is closed, forming a low pressure area beneath the plunger and drawing in wellbore fluid through the standing valve into the pump
chamber. At the end of the upstroke, the downstroke begins. When the bottom of the plunger (which
contains the traveling valve) hits the surface of the liquid that has flowed into the pump, the traveling
valve is forced open as the valve moves through the liquid and the standing valve is closed. The
downstroke of the plunger forces the liquid in the pump up through the traveling valve, adding it to the

7-11

Rod Pumping
Crooked holes preserve a friction problem.
High solids production is troublesome.
Gassy wells usually
lower volumetric efficiency.
Is depth limited, primarily due to rod
capability.
Obtrusive in urban
locations.
Heavy and bulky in
offshore operations.
Susceptible to paraffin problems.
Tubing cannot be
internally coated for
corrosion.
H2S limits depth at
which a large volume pump can be
set.
Limitations of downhole pump design in
small diameter cas-

Hydraulic
Pumping
Power 011systems
are fire hazard.
Large oil inventory
required in power
oil system which
detracts from profitability.
High solids production is troublesome.
Operatingcosts are
sometimes higher.
Unusually susceptible to gas interference usually not
vented.
Vented installations are more
expensive
because of extra
tubing required.
Treating for Scale
below packer is difficult.
Not easy for field
personnel to troubleshoot.
Difficult to obtain
valid well tests in
low volume wells.
Requires two
strings of tubing for
some installations.
Problems in treating power water
where used.
Safety problem for
high surface pressure power oil.
Loss of power oil
in surface equip
ment failures.

Electric
Submersible
Pumplng

Gas Llft

'Not applicable to
multiple comple
tions.
Only applicable with
electric power.
High voltages
(1WO V ) are necmry.
impractical in shallow low volume
wells.
Expensive to
change equipment
to match declining
well capability.
Cable causes problems in handling
tubulars.
Cablesdeteriorate in
high temperatures.
System is depth limited (10,000 ft )
(3048.0 m) due to
cable cost and
inability to install
enough power
downhole.
(Depends on casing
size.)
Gas and solids production are trouble
some.
Not easily analyzable unless good
engineering "knowhow".
Lack of production
rate flexibility.
Casing size limitation.
Cannot be set
below fluid entry
without a shroud to
route fluid by the
motor.
More downtime
when problems are
encountered due to
entire unit being
downhole.

ut gas IS not
always available.
Not efficient in lifting
small fields or onewell leases.
Difficult to lift emulsions and viscous
crudes.
Not efficient for
small fields or one
well leases if compression equip
ment is required.
Gas freezing and
hydrate problems.
Problems with dirty
surface lines.
Some difficulty in
analyzing properly
without engineering
supervision.
Cannot effectively
produce deep wells
to abandonment.
Requires make-up
gas in rotative systems.
Casing must withstand lift pressure.
Safety problem
with high pressure
gas.

Hydraulic Jet
Pumping
lift methdd.
Requires at least
20% submergence
to approach best lift
efficiency.
Design of system is
more complex.
Pump may cavitate
under certain conditions.
Very sensitive to any
change in back pressure.
The producing of
free gas through the
pump causes reduction in ability to handle liquids.
Power oil systems
are fire hazard.
High surface power
fluid pressures are
required.

Plunger Lift
May not take well
to depletion, hence
eventually requiring
another lift method.
Good for low rate
wellsonly (normally
less than 200 B/D)
(31.8 m/d).
Requires more
engineering supervision to adjust
properly.
Danger exists in
plunger reaching
too high a velocity
and causing surface damage.
Communication
betweentubing and
casing required for
good operation
unless used in conjunction with gas
lift.

Figure 7.13: Relative Disadvantages of Artificial Lift Systems

S. G. Gibbs (with Modifications by Brown)

tubing. The new fluid pushes all the other liquid in the tubing up by the volume of liquid in the pump.
The amount of distance between the top of the pump chamber and the surface of the liquid is void
space. All pumps will have some void space, but too much can lead to equipment damage. The impact
of the plunger on the liquid is described as fluid pound. The void area may result from gas breakout at
the reduced operating pressure of the pump, but the void may be large ifthe plunger goes up significantly faster than liquids can flow into the pump. Free gas is vented up the annulus. In a well with adequate reservoir liquid inflow to keep the liquid level above the pump at all times, filling the pump is

7-12

dictated by oil viscosity, pump size and speed, restrictions in the equipment surrounding the pump,
and gas in the fluids. On wells producing viscous fluids, large diameter valves, less restrictive pump
openings and slow pump speeds are useful in more completely filling the pump and reducing fluid
pound. For normal viscosity fluids, pump operating speed, pump length, and gas content are most
important. Under extreme cases of gassy fluids, the pump can be completely filled with gas (gas lock).
When a pump is gas locked, it is almost impossible to tell the response from a parted rod string or
from the well being pumped off (empty wellbore) since there is no fluid being pumped and no fluid
pound.

Start of upstroke
Traveling valve c l o s e s
Standing valve opens
Fluid begins moving into pump
Fluid above pump moves up the tubing

>

p3 p2
P 2 > P1 a t dynamic (pump f i l l i n g )
P2 P 1 at s t a t i c (pump f i l l e d )

Start of downstroke
Traveling valve opens
Standing valve c l o s e s
Fluid i n pump begins moving into tubing

p2

> p1

P2 7 Pg a t dynamic (pump emptying)

P2 = Pg a t s t a t i c

(pump empty)

Figure 7.15: Schematic of rod pump operation showing valve

action and pressure responses.

The action of the values in the pump follow well defined operating patterns of opening and closing at
certain points in the cycle of rod string movement. It is the stretching and contraction of the sucker rod
string that complicates the description of pump operation. A test instrument called the dynamometer,
which measures forces on the rod string caused by pumping, is used to optimize the operation of the
pump and string.27 The dynamometer is attached to the polish rod. The polish rod is the uppermost
rod in the string, passing through the stuffing box and attaching by a clamp and cable arrangement to
the head of the beam pumping unit. the stuffing box is a seal assembly that wipes the oil from the polish rod and forms a seal against the polish rod, maintaining the well pressure. The produced fluids are
diverted into a surface pipe at a 'T' connection just below the stuffing box. The dynamometer measures loads in the rod string by deflection of strain gauges. The gauges record stretch and recoil of the
rod string.

7-13

The most common recording on a dynamometer is one full pump cycle. An example dynamometer
card is shown in Figure 7.1 6.'' The cycle begins with pump running in steady-state operation and the
polish rod at lowest position (head of the beam lift fully down). This is the start of the upstroke. At the
beginning of the polish rod upstroke, the traveling valve in the pump is still open and the standing
valve is closed. As the polish rod starts traveling up, the pump plunger at the bottom of the well is still
traveling down because of the effects of rod stretch. The pump plunger reaches the bottom of its
stroke soon after the polish rod upstroke has started. As the pump plunger starts upward, the traveling
valve closes and the standing valve opens. The upward movement of the plunger creates a low pressure area that opens the standing valve and allows entry of the wellbore fluid. The fluid above the traveling valve is lifted by the length of the plunger travel. At the beginning of the polish rod downstroke,
the pump is still traveling upward with the standing valve open and the traveling valve closed. This tag
time between the movement of the polished rod and the plunger is brief. The deeper the well, the
more tag time exists between the uppermost position of the polish rod and end of upward pump
plunger travel. As the pump plunger reaches the end of its upstroke, the polish rod is accelerating on
the downstroke. As the pump plunger starts downward, it will be accelerated by the weight of the rods
and opposed by liquid in the working barrel. The traveling valve remains closed on the plunger downstroke until the plunger contacts the surface of the liquid that has flowed into the barrel. At this point,
the standing valve closes and the traveling valve opens. As the plunger continues its downstroke, the
fluid in the barrel is displaced through the traveling valve. A 100% efficient pump (liquid filling and
emptying the entire pump) would lift the liquid in the tubing by the pump stroke length. If the pump is
not completely full, the liquid in the tubing falls back by the height of the void space in the pump.
PEAK LOAD

Compression
of Rods

TV Closin

End of
Upstroke

Rod Recoi

End of
Downstroke
Elongation
of Rods

Compression

Minimum

Figure7.16:

Operation sequence of a rod pump and string labeled on a

dynomometer card.

A sequence of dynamometer charts are shown in Figure 7.17.32 The first chart set is a dynamometer
card from a correctly functioning pump, the second chart set shows the start of fluid pound caused by
pumping off the well and the third set is developed fluid pound. Fluid pound should be minimized in
any well to prevent damage to the rods, tubing, and pump.
To minimize problems with rod pumped wells, a few basic considerations and support equipment are
necessary.'' A rathole below the perforations will be useful in allowing solids dropout and gas separation. A tension tubing anchor 100 to 200 ft above the pump will diminish rod and tubing wear by keeping the tubing straight during the pump cycle. Unanchored tubing twists (corkscrews) every time the
traveling valve closes and the standing valve opens. Tubing stretch on each pump downstroke will
cause the tubing collars to rub against the casing. A gas anchor (gas separator) helps separate
entrained gas from the liquid to minimize gas locks in pumps. The covering over the pump is called the
mud anchor. This device has numerous slots which strain the fluids of potentially damaging solids, it
also prevents damage to the pump if the tubing is run into the bottom of the hole.

7-14

DynamometerCards Showing Full Liquid Fillage

Dynamometer Cards with Wqm Tmveling Valve or Plunger

(Full Liquid Fillage)

Q
Surfake Card

Pump Card

Dynamometer Cards with Worn Standing Valve

(Full Liquid Fillage)

DynamometerCards Showin UnanchoredTubing

(Full Uquid dage)

-c>I/--?
Surface Card

-/

Surface Card

Tubing Movement

Pump Card

DynamometerCards Showing Fluid Pound

I
A.

Pump Card

Dynamometer Cards Showing Pump Hitting Down and/or Up

(Full Liquid Fillage)

Pump Card

JD

Loads ike showing

pump k n g down.

(Kristiansen, Amoco, 1989)

Figure 7.17: Surface and downhole dynomometer cards for various lift
conditions.

Selection of rod strings is dependent upon depth and the buckling loads exerted on the rods on the
downstroke. Increasing depth places larger tensile loads on the rod strings and requires larger rods.
The sucker rods above the pump can be buckled if the force required to drive the plunger down
exceeds 21 Ib for 5/8 in. rods and 41 Ib for 3/4 in. rods.18 Buckling of the rods causes metal fatigue in
the rods and rod coupling-on-tubing wear that often leads to split tubing. To reduce rod coupling and
tubing abrasion, stiffer rods above the pump, sinker bars, and/or rod guides are recommended. To
reduce pump wear, Gipson and Swaim recommend at least one full-bore, fluted, rod centralizer should
be run above the pump.18
Pumps and plungers are sized by computer programs that consider a number of variables. The well
inflow performance, fluid viscosity, well depth, and water cut are all considered. Plunger length
increases with depth. Plunger lengths range from 3 ft in wells of 3000 ft to lengths of 6 ft in wells of
6000 ft or deeper. Shorter plungers can be used when lifting very viscous oil. Leakage between the
plunger and the working barrel (slippage) is inversely proportional to plunger length, and proportional

7-15

to clearance in thousandths of an inch cubed. Cutting the plunger length in half will double the slippage. Increasing the clearance from 0.001 to 0.002 in. will increase slippage by a factor of eight.
Beam pumping units are described in API Std 11E, API Specifications for Pumping Units. The bulletin covers beam design and torque ratings of parts.33 Designing the power system and optimizing
power usage are also discussed in the literature.34B5
Gas Lift

The preparation of tubing intake curves become more complex for gas lift wells because the injection
gadliquid ratio is an additional unknown. Brown advises that the solution point is normally taken at
either the top or bottom of the well. The tubing intake curve is affected by the entire piping system. At
the surface, the piping system has been isolated. In a detailed design, both solutions are advisable.
Most liquids can be lifted by injecting gas into the liquid stream in the tubing near the bottom of the
well. As the gas rises the bubbles expand, increasing the velocity of the fluid and decreasing its density. The amount of gas needed for lift depends on tubing diameter, liquid volume, liquid density, depth
and bottom hole pressure. Gas injection may be needed only at the bottom in shallow wells or the
injection points may be spaced out along the tubing string in deeper

Gas lift valves are spring loaded or pressure balanced release valves. The valves are set to open at a
certain gas pressure. They feed a small amount of the gas from the annulus into the tubing. The
valves are placed in gas lift mandrels: a special section in the tubing that receives the valve and gives
it a port or opening to the gas in the annulus. The gas lift mandrels are spaced out in the tubing string
according to the design. Extra mandrels are usually added to allow for pressure decline during depletion or to meet the demand of larger fluid lifting requirements when water influx starts. When extra gas
lift mandrels are used, dummy gas lift valves are inserted when the string is run to stop unnecessary
gas loss. The dummy valves can be replaced with operating valves by a slick line unit without pulling
the well. Because the valves can be easily replaced at low expense, gas lift systems are usually economical. The major operational expense is obtaining gas and the cost of gas compression. Gas lift is
limited by the availability of injection gas, the available gas pressure, and the depth and pressure of
the well to be lifted. Gas lift is very useful in producing silt and solids-laden fluids since there are few
moving parts where the solids could cause blockages or abrasion.
Electrical Submersible Pump

Electric Submersible Pumps, ESPs, are downhole pump units that are capable of lifting very large
quantities of fluids.2213740The units, Figure 7.1 8 , are composed of motor, pump, and various support
component^.^^ The motor is electric and is fed through armor shielded cable attached to the outside of
the tubing.41 The units operate at a design capacity Figure 7.19, and efficiency falls off rapidly if the
operation is moved out of the recommended range. ESP applications are increasing because of their
economic fluid handling capacity. They are limited by high well temperature, solids, gas, and small
casing
ESPs cannot handle solids laden fluids in most cases and particularly when operation is intermittent. Gas must be vented to maintain pump efficiencies.
Other Systems

Special lift equipment has been developed for specific applications. Jet pumps, Figure 7.20,40p48149
hydraulic lift, progressive cavity,50 plunger pump and other systems all have applications where operating conditions and economics will favor their use.
Lift Selection

Brown lists six economic factors involved in selection of an artificial lift system: Initial Capital Investment, Operating Expenses, Equipment Operating Life, Number of Wells, Availability, Well Life. The

7-16

(Jambs, SPE, 1989)

Figure7.19: An example of an ESP performance curve

showing optimum range.

impact of fluid type, solids content, gas and liquid viscosities on the operating expense and equipment
life usually dictate the types of lift systems that can be considered.
Although a complete handling of artificial lift design will not be covered here, examples from Brown, in
Appendix 7.A, will illustrate some of the considerations and choices for lift design.13

Reservoir Fluid Classification

Hydrocarbon classification is divided into liquid and gas with sub-classification to fit the needs of the
situation. Liquids are usually black oils or volatile oils and gas wells are gas or gas-condensate. The
difference between volatile oils and gas-condensate is defined by the relative amounts of liquids and
gases.

7-17

(Jacobs, SPE, 1989)

Figure 7.20: Schematic of jet pump operation.

Gilchrist and Adams refer to black oils as having gas-oil-ratios (GORs) of less than 2000 scf/bbl, API
gravities of 45 or less and formation volume factors (FVF) of less than 2 bbl/bbl. Volatile oils have
GORs from 2000 to 3000, gravities of 40 or higher (note the overlap) and FVF above 2 bbl/bbl. The
difference between the volatile oils and the gas-condensate can be seen on the phase diagram. The
term near-critical is applied to oils between the established phase areas.

(Gilchrist 8. Adams, PEI, July 1993)

Figure 7.21: A phase diagram of a liquid gas composition. The fluids

in the middle are near critical oil that are very close to
being gas-condensates.

Gases may be retrograde or gas-condensate, wet gas or dry gas. Retrograde refers to a gas (at reservoir conditions) that releases liquids as it drops below critical conditions due to production effects. If

7-18

the liquids drop out in pore space that only contained gas or gas and water, then the hydrocarbon liquid becomes a third phase, reducing permeability to gas. Gas-condensates have GORs from 3000 to
150,000 scf/bbl and API liquid gravities from 40 to 60. The difference in wet-gas and gas-condensate is where they drop the liquids: wet gas drops liquids at the surface; dry gas does not drop liquids.
Sampling wells for pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) tests is essential for proper well classification.
The producing GOR must be stable and the sample should be taken as close as possible to the minimum GOR.
The information available from the PVT test includes bubble point (gas breakout in an undersaturated
oil), dew point (liquid dropout from a gas), gas composition at various pressures (important in depletion), formation volume factor, condensed liquid rates, retrograde information and several other pieces
of information.

References
1, Gilbert, W. E.: Flowing and Gas Lift Well Performance, API, Pacific Coast Meeting, Los Angeles, (May 1954).
2. Vogel, J. V.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Wells, JPT, (Jan. 1968),
pp. 83-92.
3. Buhidma, I. M.: Inflow Performance Relationship Prediction, Southwest Petroleum Short
Course, Lubbock, April 1989.
4. Kimmel, J. W.: Larger ID Tubulars Boost Deep Gas Well Production, Pet. Eng. Prod. Eng.,
1978.
5. Patton, L. D., Abbott, W. A.: Well Performance: The Effect of Inflow and Outflow Performance
Factors, Pet. Eng. Intl., (April 1981), pp. 58, 62, 64, 67, 70.

6. Duggan, J. 0.: Estimating Flow Rate Required to Keep Gas Wells Unloaded, J. Pet. Tech.,
(Dec. 1961), p. 1173.
7. Turner, R. G., Hubbard, M. G., Duckler, A. E.: Analysis and Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for
Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells, J. Pet. Tech., (Nov. 1969), p. 1175.
8. Brown, K. E.: The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, PennWelI Books, (1980), 3A & 3B.
9. Patton, L. D., Abbott, W. A.: The Well Outflow System: Tubing Performance, Pet. Eng. Int.,
(March 1981), pp. 96, 96, 103, 106, 112.
10. Torre, A. J., Schmidt, Z., Blais, R. N., Doty, D. R., Brill, J. P.: Casing Heading in Flowing Oil
Wells, SPE Prod. Eng., (Nov. 1987), pp. 297-304.
11. Brown, Kermit E. and Lea, James F.: Nodal Systems Analysis of Oil and Gas Wells, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, (October 1985), pp. 1751-1763.
12. Brown, K. E.: The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, Vol. 1-3, PennWell Books, Tulsa, OK,
1979.
13. Brown, K. E.: Overview of Artificial Lift Systems, SPE 9979, Int. Pet. Exhib. and Tech. Symp.,
Beijing, March 18-26, 1982.

7-19

14. Brown, K. E., et al.: The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, Vol. 11-B, PenWell Books, Tulsa,
OK, 1979.
15. Greene, William R.: Analyzing the Performance of Gas Wells, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (July 1983), pp. 1378-1384.
16. Vogel, J. M.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs, J. Pet.
Tech., (Jan. 68), p. 83.
17. Gibbs, S. G.: A Review of Methods for Design and Analysis of Rod Pumping Installations, J.
Pet. Tech, (Dec. 1982) 2931-39.
18. Gipson, F. W. and Swaim, H. W.: The Beam Pumping Design Chain, Southwestern Petroleum
Short Course, (1984), pp. 296-376.
19. Neely, A. Buford and Tolbert, H. 0.: Experience With Pumpoff Control in the Permian Basin,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, (May 1988), pp. 645-650.
20. Schmidt, Z. and Doty, D. R.: System Analysis for Sucker-Rod Pumping, SPE Production Engineering, (May 1989), pp. 125-130.
21. Gibbs, S. G.: Computing Gearbox Torque and Motor Loading For Beam Pumping Units With
Consideration of Inertia Effects, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (September 1975), pp. 11531159.
22. Clegg, Joe Dunn: High-Rate Artificial Lift, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (March 1988),
pp. 277-282.
23. Pellegrino, V. L. and Scott, G. T.: Oilfield Power: Technology and Cost Control, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, (April 1989), pp. 389-394.
24. Kelley, Howard L.: Engineering Artificial Lift Equipment to Produce Gaseous Fluids, pp. 143152.
25. Stein, N., Elfrink, E. B.,Wiener, L. D. and Sandberg, C. R.: The Slip Velocity of Gases Rising
Through Liquid Columns, Petroleum Transactions, AIME, Vol. 195, (1952), pp. 233-236.
26. Clegg, Joe D.: Reducing Gas Interference in Rod Pumped Wells, World Oil, (June 1979),
pp. 125-129.
27. Nolen, K. B. and Gibbs, S.G.: Quantitative Determination of Rod Pump Leakage Using Dynamometer Techniques, SPE 18185, (1988), pp. 45-55.
28. Gault, Robert H.: Designing a Sucker-Rod Pumping System for Maximum Efficiency, SPE Production Engineering, (November 1987), pp. 284-296.
29. Clegg, J. D.: Understanding and Combating Gas Interference in Pumping Wells, World Oil,
(May 1963), pp. 107-112.
30. Pickford, K. H. and Morris, B. J.: Hydraulic Rod Pumping Units in Offshore Artificial Lift Applications, SPE 16922, (1987), pp. 431-436.
31. Svinos, J. G.: Use of Downhole Pulsation Dampener to Eliminate the Effect of Fluid Inertia on a
Rod Pump System, SPE 18779, Calif. Regional Mtg., Bakersfield, April 5-7, 1989.

7-20

32. Neeley and Tolbert

33. API Spec. 11AX: API Specifications for Subsurface Sucker Rod Pumps and Fittings, Seventh
Edition, June 1979.
34. Coltharp, E. D.: Subsurface Electrical Centrifugal Pumps, J. Pet. Tech. (April 1984), 645-652.
35. Gault, R. H.:Designing a Sucker-Rod Pumping System for Maximum Efficiency, SPE Prod.
Eng. (Nov. 1987), 284-296.
36. Cameron, M. Liang: Gas-Lift Design and Production Optimization Offshore Trinidad, SPE Production Engineering, (May 1989), pp. 135-142.
37. Hoestenbach, R. D.: Large-Volume, High-Horsepower Submersible Pumping Problems in Water
Source Wells, J. Pet. Tech., (Oct 1982), pp. 2397-2402.
38. Wilson, Brown L.: Program Sizes Electrical Submersible Pumps, Oil and Gas Journal, (August
1989), pp. 68-70.
39. Nolen, K. B. and Gibbs, S.G.: Analysis of Electric-Submersible- Pumping Systems, SPE Production Engineering, (May 1989), pp. 121-124.
40. Jacobs, E. G.: Artificial Lift in the Montrose Field, North Sea, SPE Production Engineering,
(August 1989), pp. 313-320.
41. Neuroth, D. H.: Design Features of Improved Electric-Submersible-Pump Cable To Withstand
Installation and Service Conditions, SPE Production Engineering, (February 1989), pp. 83-92.
42. Lea, James F. and Bearden, J. L.: Effect of Gaseous Fluids on Submersible Pump Performance, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (1982), pp. 2922-2930.
43. Lea, James F. and Bearden, John L.: Gas Separator Performance for Submersible Pump Operation, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (1982), pp. 1327-1333.
44. Jacobs, Gary H.: ESP/Rotary Gas Separator Duo Found to Optimize Production, World Oil,
(November 1986), pp. 55-58.
45. Neely, A. B. and Patterson, M. M.: Soft Start of Submersible Pumped Oil Wells, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, (1984), pp. 653 & 656.

46. OToole, W. P. and OBrien, J. B.: Testing New Submersible Pumps for Proper Sizing and
Reduced Costs, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (February 1989), pp. 159-164.
47. Bailey, Martin C. and Bearden, John: ESP - The Electrical Submersible Pump, Part 2 - Operating Ranges and Limits of the ESP System, Petroleum Engineer International, (September 1982),
pp. 128-132.
48. Grupping, A. W., Coppes, J. L. R. and Groot, J. G.: Fundamentals of Oilwell Jet Pumping, SPE
Production Engineering, (February 1988), pp. 9-1 4.
49. Christ, F. C. and Petrie, H. L.: Obtaining Low Bottomhole Pressures in Deep Wells With Hydraulic Jet Pumps, SPE Production Engineering, (August 1989), pp. 290-294.

7-21

50. Saveth, K. J., Klein, S.T. and Fisher, K. B.: A Comparative Analysis of Efficiency and Horse-

power Between Progressing Cavity Pumps and Plunger Pumps, SPE 16194, (1987), pp. 87-92.
51. Gilchrist, R.E., Adams, J. E.: How to Best Utilize PVT Reports, P.E.I., July 1993, pp. 38-41.

7-22

Appendix 7.A (from Brown)

Given Data:
Depth8000 ft (2438.40 m)
G/O
Water Production
Rate
API
Tubing size
(All power sources available)
P
= 2300 psia (15.86 MPa)
PI
= 3 (0.07 m3/d-KPa) until reaching Pb = 1600 psi (11.03 MPa)
Pwh = 100 psia (0.69 MPa) (Wellhead flowing pressure)
Casing Size= 7 in. (1 7.79 cm)
For the above problem, the best type lift is to be selected. The information in the general problem is
used and changes are made in each example to alter the possible lift choice with all else remaining
constant.
Kmol
'm

GiL 3000 SCF/B ( 2 2 . 5 5 3 PI = 0.01

(2.31 'E-04 dd-KPa)

1.

qL = 20 b/d (3.10 m3/d)

The first choice should be intermittent gas lift or plunger lift. Beam pumping or hydraulic pumping may
be considered if proper gas venting can be accomplished. Sufficient gas is available to run a plunger.
Depth 12000 ft (3657.6 m)P/ = 0.1 (2.31 E-03m3/d-Kpa)

2.

qL = 200b/d (31.80 rn3/d)

m3/d-KPa

The hydraulic piston with venting should be considered due to great depth.

Rate = 6OOOB/D( 953.92$)

PI

= 10 (0.23 m3/d-KP)

3. Tubing 4 in. (10.16 cm)

The choice would be continuous flow gas lift or electrical pump. Since 6000 B/D (953.92 m3/d) with a
PI of 10 (0.23 m3/d-KPa) only requires a flowing pressure of 1700 psi (11.72 MPa), it is still above the
bubble point and no free gas is pumped if the pump is set on bottom. Setting the pump higher up in
the hole would induce gas liberation and a means of venting would be required. Jet pumping may also
be considered. After a few considerations:
4. Severe H2S problem: Gas lift is the only lift method where the well fluids do not pass through the

lift mechanism. Electrical submersible and hydraulic may be considered.

7.A-23

Depth 3000 ft (914.40 m)

Rate - 400 b/d (63.59 m3d)

PR = 1200 psia (8.27 MPa)

5. PI = 1.0 (2.306 m3/d-KPa)

This is a good choice for beam pumping due to shallow depth and a rate of 400 B/D (63.59 m3/d)
6. No engineering supervision available: Beam pumping is the most understood method by most
field operators, with continuous flow gas lift also a good choice.
7. Well produces sand: With bad sand production, the choice would be continuous flow gas lift.

8. Bad paraffin problems: All methods can be considered but paraffin removal must be kept in
mind. Rod pumping is probably the best choice.
Depth = 6000 ft (1828.8 m)
Rate - 10, 000 b/d (1589.98 m3/d)
2-7/8 X 7" annular flow (7.30

- 17.78 cm)

9. PI = 25 (0.58 m3/d-KPa)
Continuous gas flow lift is a good choice with electrical submersibl and jet pump as alternate
Rate = 25, 000 b/d (3.974.68 m3 )

9-5/8" casing 4" tubing (24.45 cm casing)

10. PI = 25 (0.58 m3/d-KPa)

Continuous gas flow lift or electrical submersible pump.

PR

drops to 300 psi (2.07 MPa)

PI = 0.02 (4.61 E-04 m3/d-KPa)

11. Rate = maximum possible

Beam pumping or hydraulic pumping.

100% oil
G/O = 4OOO Scfibl(30.07 Kmol/m3 )

PR

= 500 psia (3.45 MPa)

PI = 0.02 (4.61 E-04 m3/d-KPa)

12. Rate = maximum possible

7.A-24

Plunger lift due to the high Gas Oil ratio or beam pumping with adequate venting.
Long 300 ft (91.44 m) perforated interval

PR
PI

= 500 psia (3.45 W a )

=

2 (0.05 m3/d-KPa)

13. Rate = maximum possible

This is a good candidate for chamber intermittent gas lift.
Open hole completion (400 ft) (121.92m)

?'R

= 700 psia (4.83 Mpa)

PI = 1.0 (2.306 m3/d-KPa)

14. Rate = maximum possible
This is a good candidate for an insert chamber type intermittent gas lift.
Example #2
1. Offshore Well
8000 ft (2438.40 m) high productivity, high static pressure, low solution. GOR (150 scf/B)
(1.13 Kmol/m3) with bubble point at 350 psi (2.41 MPa). Desired rate of 10,000 B/D (1589.87 m3/d)
can be obtained with a flowing pressure of 1500 psi (1 0.34 MPa).
Selection Choice
Electrical submersible pump since no free gas will be pumped and a rate 3 m of 10,000 B/D
3
) can only be obtained with either continuous flow gas lift or electrical pump. The very
(1589.87
'd
low GOR of 150 ScWB (1.13 Kmol/m3) makes the electrical pump more attractive. Gas lift runs a close
first choice due to better retrievable reliability.
(b) Same well as Example (a) except a GOR of 800 ScflB (6.01 Kmol/m3)exists with a bubble point of
1500 psi (10.34 MPa).
Selection Choice
Continuous flow gas lift is a better choice since free gas exists at the required flowing bottomhole
pressure. Being an offshore well, the retrievable equipment is again very attractive and the fact that
the electrical pump will need to handle some gas reduces its liquid handling capability.
Example #3
2. Land Well
Depth= 8000 ft (2438.40 m)\

1.A-25

Static pressure= 1920 (13.24 MPa)

PI
= 5 (0.12 m3/d-KPa)
Bubble point pressure= 1500 pis (10.34 MPa)
Gas Oil ratio= 400 ScWB (3.01 Kmol/m3)
Well produces 50% water
2-7/8" O.D. x 2.441" I.D. tubing x 7'' casing.
(7.30 cm O.D. x 6.20 cm I.D. tubing x 17.78 cm casing).
This well was analyzed for rates possible and found to produce as follows:
1. Electrical submersible pump - 4500 BID (715.44 m3/d).
(Assumes no pump inefficiency due to handling some free gas).
2. Continuous flow gas lift with a surface injection pressure of 1500 psi (10.34 MPa), 1750 B/D
(278.23 m3/d).
3. Beam pumping with a 640 unit - 1750 B/D (278.23 m3/d).
4. Hydraulic pumping with a large pump - 1750 B/D (278.23 m3/d).

5. Jet pumping with the assumption of handling no free gas - 2750 B/D (437.22 m3/d).
It was also noted that approximately 4000 BID (635.95 m3/d) could be made by continuous flow gas
lift if a change was made to 4-1/2" (11.43 cm) O.D. tubing. Lower increases were noted for all pumping
systems although less horsepower is required for the larger tubing size. Final selection would depend
upon the objective flow rate (whether maximum or less) and economics.
Example #4 (see Reference 2)

Pr
= 1500 psi (10.34 MPa)
Depth = 7600 ft (2316.48 m)
Bubble point pressure = 1500 psi (1 0.34 MPa)
Maximum flow rate for zero flowing bottomhole pressure is 215 B/D (34.18 m3/d)
GOR = Scf/B
This well was analyzed for rate with the following results:
1. Beam pumping - 200 B/D (31.80 m3/d)
2. Hydraulic pumping - 200 B/D (31.80 m3/d)
3. Jet pumping - 165 B/D (26.23 m3/d)
4. Continuous Flow Gas Lift - 165 B/D (26.23 m3/d).

5. Intermittent Flow Gas Lift with a chamber installation 190 B/D (30.21 m3/d).

6. Electrical Submersible Pumping - 200 B/D (31.80 m3/d).

7.A-26

The logical choice on this well is beam pumping or hydraulic pumping if adequate venting can be
accomplished. The electrical pump requires too many stages to handle the gas and loses efficiency.
If gas venting cannot be properly handled, then a chamber intermittent gas lift installation would be a
good selection. The option of running a plunger in conjunction with a chamber would be another
choice, but should increase efficiency.

7.A-27

Chapter 8: Special Completions (Deviated, Thermal

Multiples, and Multi-Laterals)
Deviated Completions
Completions in deviated wellbores were traditionally viewed as necessary in many cases where the
surface area for locating wellheads was expensive or the terrain would not allow a vertical well. In
most cases, this occurs in mountainous country, offshore platforms, or environmentally sensitive
areas. The primary objective was the increased area of the reservoir available from a single location.
In the past several years, however, the objective has shifted to a renewed interest in using highly deviated and even horizontal holes to augment production in specific reservoirs over that which is available from a vertical well. The horizontal holes or drain holes, as they were referred to during the
1940's, 50's and 603,were of interest as early as 1930, although only a few highly deviated experimental attempts were made until the 1970's. The original work on highly deviated and horizontal holes
is in dispute, but it appears that many engineers from Russia, the U.S., Canada and France provided
significant parts of the early work. The horizontal well concept has evolved considerably in design and
application over the early ideas to a technique that offers benefits in many applications. Change in the
industry's acceptance of the horizontal hole is the result of numerous improvements in the drilling and
completion
Descriptions

Horizontal well^*^^
may be established with normally used drilling equipment and results in either
a single stage step out to form a short radius (Figure 8.1) or a two-stage step out which may result in
a highly deviated portion and a long horizontal portion, of 4000 ft or more.'* The short radius lateral
drilling technique is usually attained with a whipstock and builds hole angle at the rate of 1.5" to 3" per
foot. The long reach, conventional directional drilling builds hole angle at a maximum of about 0.1 O per
foot.
TYPICAL WELLBORE

E.
8
0

c
I
k
w
0

$28
2

PROFlLES
2-

34-

Two-Build Profile

567-

*9-

Single Build Rofile For

Short Departure Wells
0

DEPARTURE (1000 FT)

(Reiley, SPE 16682)

Figure 8.1:

Examples of drilling angles commonly

used for horizontal wells.

8-1

Horizontal Well Candidate Selection

Many of the problems encountered in horizontal wells are the result of normal reservoir performance.
Not every formation is a candidate for a horizontal well. The first consideration in planning a horizontal
well and the first determination in trying to make a horizontal well flow better are the same: check the
vertical permeability and see if it is an impediment to flow. The following few paragraphs may seem
like extremely simple reservoir engineering; they are. Unfortunately, they are frequently ignored as
engineers rush ahead to get involved with the romance of a horizontal well.
Permeability in a formation can vary widely with the direction of flow. The permeability is influenced by
factors including the depositional environment, sediment size and sorting, bedding planes, fractures,
geochemical reactions, and sediment reworking. The major permeability directions, shown in
Figure 8.2, are vertical, horizontal (usually at a maximum) and horizontal perm at 90to the maximum
horizontal perm.

Figure 8.2

The flow patterns in a well are controlled by how it intersects the three functional permeabilities. Permeability in an unfractured formation is usually highest along a horizontal direction and usually varies
very little at 90to the maximum. These two horizontal flow values control fluid entry into a vertical
well as shown in Figure 8.3.
bso.

KV

Ku

KV

KHgg.

Horizontal Wellbore

Vertical Wellbore

Figure 8.3

The vertical permeability has little influence in continuous formations intersected by vertical wellbores
and completed over the whole interval. However, in a horizontal wellbore, only 60% to 80% of the wellbore is connected to horizontal permeability. The top and bottom of the well (in a formation without significant inclination) are fed in some part by the vertical permeability. Vertical permeabilities may range
from being more or the same as horizontal permeability in very rare cases to values as small as 10%

8-2

or less of horizontal perm in more typical formations containing pronounced bedding planes. The
worst comparisons are encountered in laminated formations. Regardless of the cause, if vertical permeability is low, the formation is not a good candidate for a horizontal well with a natural completion.
Horizontal wells may still be used in these cases, but stimulation is required to improve vertical contact.
Although the contact of the wellbore with vertical permeability can appear to influence flow, it is the
formation drainage patterns created by the permeability difference or anisotropy that may create serious problems. By relating the vertical and horizontal permeabilities in a ratio, the drainage patterns
begin to become clear. In Figure 8.4, the drainage area is sketched for three examples; Kv/KH = 0.1,
KV/KH= 1 and Kv/KH = 2.

Figure 8.4
The Kv/KH of 0.1 (horizontal perm ten times vertical) is typical for many formations. As shown in the
schematic, this type of drainage would only account for less than one-half of what might be expected
if Kv/KH = 1. Confirmation of this simple analysis can be obtained by drainage plots in the literature
(Figure 8.5).

'

.
.

R.s.rv011

111helphi

n.,itm-i

loo

11

(00.48mI

draiwss area
varlleal rdl dralnage nIem

tlr.l4rormq

00 .C.S

0 -

4 -

af -

l -

0'

I
loo

I
zoo

'

aoo

400

so0

1
moo

100

moo

BOO

Figure 8.5

1000 1100

(zoo

(SPE 15375 -Joshi)

The purpose of this excursion into basic reservoir engineering is simple; a horizontal well, like a vertical well, is confined by its own set of reservoir factors.

Horizontal Completions Background

The horizontal well has an immense amount of potential and a number of significant problems which
have been addressed in a variety of interesting ways. Fluid entry control, fluid exit control, and the sta-

8-3

bility of the wellbore as a system have all been challenged by the various reservoir properties. There
are no horizontal wellbore problems that are significantly different from those in vertical wellbores.
However, the orientation of the wellbore often makes handling of even minor problems considerably
more difficult. These areas are highlighted in the following general topics.
One of the first problems encountered when turning the well horizontal as a recompletion or as a new
well was sealing off the upper zones in the bend area where milling and angle drilling were prevalent.
Many early horizontal wells were plagued by gas and less often water leaking through poor primary
cement jobs from upper zones. Since the wellbore turned horizontal, it became a collection point, and
this fluid migration down the annulus interfered with fluid feed-in and with operation of pumps or other
equipment. The accepted prevention quickly became the external casing packers, ECP, cement
squeezes and in some cases, a decision to simply live with the problem. As diagnostic techniques
have been applied and the sources of water were determined, routine gel squeezes or polymer
squeezes have become more common. The introduction of the isolation packer on coiled tubing has
helped this treatment tremendously. With these devices, the source of water can often be located as
well as a remedial treatment pumped back in an attempt to shut off the water or gas. It is feasible that
in severe cases, mechanical repair using scab liners of the same type used in vertical wells may also
be beneficial. Because of the clearance and the bend in the location, liner design will be a challenge.
The shape of the hole through this turnout area is a problem for more than just setting liners. Horizontal holes may be drilled in a number of ways from ultrashort radius to long radius. The hole shape
problems in the turnout area are more common with short and ultrashort turnout where a horizontal
well has been recompleted from an older vertical well. In this operation, a window is generally milled
or a section is milled out. After setting a whip stock, drilling commences, an angle is built through the
area with typical ultrashort radiuses of 6 to 20 ft and short radiuses of 50 or 60 ft. Smooth departures
from holes are needed in order to insert too! strings or simple equipment. When the departure area
contains a dogleg from a missed drilling run or a combination angle which turns down and sideways at
the same time, tool passage becomes very difficult. There have been few workable methods to try to
accomplish completions in these particular wells. Better drilling practices were suggested in future
wells and in wells that already have deviation or shape problems in the departure area. Logging tools
with knuckle joints are being constructed. These tools with universal joints or flexible joints in the middle are targeted first at the ultrashort radius turnouts such as those developed by Amoco on their wiggly joint drilling technology.
The next challenge in the near wellbore area is a loss of hole drilling mud to natural fracture systems.
Horizontal wells depend on vertical permeability through the matrix or through natural fracture systems to effectively drain the reservoir. The problems with crossing these natural fractures is the loss of
mud in conventional drilling. In many cases, mud losses to the natural fracture systems have been so
severe that the well has never produced as expected after completion. The accepted standard mud
loss control has been the typical lost circulation materials, LCM. These materials have few solvents
and are extremely difficult to remove from the formation. In most cases, they should be avoided. In a
few places, companies have experimented with drilling underbalanced or drilling with no returns. In
the Piersal Chalk Field, one company continues to drill without returns or while the well is flowing
using a diverter system to divert all fluids away from the rig at the surface. The technique is tricky at
best, and some companies have lost rigs due to fires. One success story in the chalk involved a well
producing over 20,000 barrels of crude oil during the drilling phase. In this unusual case, the well was
paid for before drilling was completed.
Other ways of achieving mudcake breakup and removal has centered on solvents and surfactant
(soap) systems. Use of explosives and openhole perforating are seen as a method of bypassing the
formation damage. Fluid damage bypass is possible if the damage in the crack does not extend too
far. However, connection with the natural fracture system is usually mandatory in these wells. Solvents for muds depend on the mud composition. Oil-based muds have been effectively removed with
either xylene or cosolvent washes and a few surfactant packages. The problems with surfactant packages are that they are very mud specific and may not be effective over a wide range of mud types.
Xylene or cosolvents are more expensive or more difficult to use but apply over a wider range of materials. Water based muds are typically removed by soaps, acids or nitrified washes. The problem is
removing deep formation damage.

8-4

Bypassing the damage with explosives or openhole perforating depends on how shallow the formation
damage occurs. Explosives which have been used for both damage bypass and initial stimulation may
be effective if the explosive stimulation is designed to utilize the benefit of a crack driving gas generator as opposed to a shattering force from a high explosive. Openhole perforating has been used in a
few places to try to bypass very shallow damage. The 6 to 10 in. penetration which is typical from a
perforating charge is usually not adequate to bypass deep mud filtrate damage.
Cuttings and fill collection continues to be a problem, although significant headway has been made in
cleaning horizontal holes. When holes are not cleaned, the cuttings and formation drilling mud contributes to plugs in liners and screens. It limits the cement contact and provides small particles that may
induce emulsions. The accepted practice in this area has been to sweep with viscous fluids and
flushes. However, reverse circulating on tubing or using a liner with removable aluminum plugs and
reverse circulating it into place may be advantageous for removing large amounts of these cuttings.
Filtrate leakoff is found in all wells. The only thing it requires is a liquid, pressure toward the formation
and permeability. Even in a well formulated drilling mud, to form a filtercake, you must have fluid invasion. The potential to cause clay damage, water blocks, emulsions or other problems from the drilling
fluid filtrate is related to the sensitivity of the formation to the particular drilling fluid and to the amount
of the drilling fluid. Removal attempts for filtrate and the associated mud cake in vertical wells has typically been by backflow or small acid washes. In horizontal wells, the problems involved are lower
drawdown unit of area, longer mud exposure time and typically, less acid volume for cleanup. This
forces the operator to look at fluids with very low fluid loss and those materials that can come off the
formation much easier. Mechanical methods such as water blasting or solvent washing are also being
evaluated.
Many horizontal wells have suffered poorer than anticipated production at least partly due to the presence of a fluid column between the horizontal extension and the bottom of the pump (Figure 8.6). The
hydrostatic gradient from such a fluid level is rarely severe, ranging from 0.46 to 0.36 psi backpressure for every foot of standing fluid, but it adds to the resistance to flow. The worst influence of the
standing fluid column is in gas wells. Because gas has low viscosity, it does not serve as a good displacement fluid at low flow rates. This means that the gas will often slug through the wellbore or trickle
through the water in the pores, never completely unloading the pore and driving the water saturation
low enough to raise the permeability to gas. In the final analysis, the pores remain flooded with water
and hydrocarbon production that suffer.

8
Figure 8.6

Any time water is standing in the well, heading can be a serious problem. Heading occurs when the
gas flow velocity in a particular tubular or wellbore size is too low to carry the entrained liquids. The
liquid accumulates in the lowest point, holding a backpressure on the formation corresponding to liquid density and height of the liquid column above the formation. Gas movement through the water
occurs in slugs as (1) the pressure builds up; (2) the gas unloads, often driving a slug of water ahead
of it; (3) the pressure falls rapidly as gas escapes and most of the water drains back. The cyclic nature
of the heading causes fluctuations of 50 to 300 psi or more in some wells. Since most lift systems are
designed for continuous, steady operations, the slugging causes load imbalances or instabilities that
sharply lower lift efficiencies.

8-5

Reducing the liquid buildup is usually accomplished by running tailpipe to a lower part of the well or
using smaller diameter tubulars in wells where the liquid dropout is occurring in the tubing. In nonflowing wells, the problem becomes more difficult since the lift system needs to be spotted at a low point
for liquid unloading. The success of velocity strings or siphon strings, small tubing that more effectively uses gas energy to lift liquids, may be lower in highly deviated wells than in vertical wells. Gas
flow along the top of the deviated tailpipe reduces lift efficiency.
Methods to minimize the column buildup have centered on approaches that maximize drainage. In
short radius turnout wells, the lift system can often be spotted in the old vertical hole below the turnout
or in a pilot hole, Figure 8.7.This reduces liquid buildup, but, because of the turnout radius, it does not
eliminate the liquid in the horizontal wellbore. It is better suited to short radius wells.

Figure 8.7

The problem of a static fluid layer in the horizontal is a problem even in flowing wells. Anytime the flow
rate from the well is not sufficient to create turbulence across the whole wellbore, liquids and solids
drop out quickly and flow may only move in a portion of the wellbore, Figure 8.8, that is dependent on
rate. The effect of the static liquid on the formation is dependent on liquid invasion of the formation,
relative permeability and alternate flow paths. There is one clear conclusion, however: it cannot help
the flow of gas. At minimum, the formation pores at the wellbore contact remain wetted with a high Sw
and lower relative permeability to gas.
A special case of problems in flow caused by liquids, and perhaps even gas, are illustrated in
Figure 8.9.

Figure 8.9

8-6

In this undulating lateral, a common design in several horizontal well paths, low places may act as
traps for liquids or solids, holding backpressures. High points may even act as simple gas locks, adding several tens of psi backpressure. This type of wellpath cannot be kept adequately unloaded unless
the flow rate is sufficient to remove all static liquids.

Path of the Horizontal Section

Several industry horizontals have been drilled more as excursions and exploring attempts through the
pay zone, resulting in the difficult-to-produce scenarios of Figure 8.9. Even in true horizontals, the
problem of solids and liquid entrapment can be severe. A vertical drop of only a few inches in slow
moving fluid in a horizontal wellbore is all that is needed to stratify the wellbore materials.
In this description, proven out by testing in Dressers inclinable clear plastic flow loop in Houston, the
fluids separate in the wellbore at any flow rate below full turbulence. The fastest moving and lightest
fluids flow along the top of the wellbore. At the bend area, much of the liquids drop out or reflux back
into the horizontal. Solids, of course, quickly drop to the bottom of the hole. Solids buildup and cleaning in the horizontal has been the subject of many studies in the field of drilling. Cleaning solids from
the well is difficult. Attempts have been made with viscous sweeps and even turbulent flow; all with
only minor success. In a set of experiments in a clear plastic horizontal well model, solids movement
was studied as part of work on horizontal well gravel packing. The gravel dropped out and built a running dune as the solid/liquid slurry entered the horizontal section, filling the wellbore to a height controlled by the flow velocity of the carrier liquid. At low flow rates (low velocity), the open space
between the top of the dune and the top-inside of the casing was very small. The opening was larger
when the flow velocity was higher. Increasing rate of liquid velocity would decrease the height of the
dune (increase opening): the open area was a function of the flowing fluid velocity. In formations that
produce significant solids, wellbore fill will build to a height controlled by the flow rate and hole size.
As the solids level covers perforations on the bottom and sides of the hole, production may be lost or
restricted by flow through the solids.

Attempts to combat the liquid unloading problem are focusing on better lift and forced drainage. Outlined in the next several paragraphs are methods that have been tried to proposed to help drainage.
Note that several of these methods are suitable only for a specific set of conditions.
One approach is to use an over horizontal well of about 92O, Figure 8.1 0.The over horizontal wellbore inclination maximizes liquid draindown from the toe of the horizontal toward the heel. The problem of liquid cleanout from the heel is still there, but hopefully, improvements in lift may assist in this
area; but if the gathered liquid in the heel cannot be produced, the liquid accumulation may accelerate
heading problems.

Figure 8.10

Reversing the angle to 85 to 88 reverses the liquid collection point and may help minimize heading
but does nothing to assist fluid blockage removal or backpressure unless a lift system can be set into
the toe of the well.

8-7

Another very unusual concept is in the planning stages as two operators in a West Texas field with
high well density consider drilling an inclined wellbore from one existing well to the openhole pay zone
section of another well, Figure 8.11.

Figure 8.11

The pump could be spotted in the section of the target well below the intersection point to achieve liquid unloading. Hitting the target well will require the same gyro surveys used in drilling relief wells to
blowouts.

Artificial Lift Options

The following is a short description of several artificial lift methods that have been attempted or considered for horizontal wells. The aim is to present an overview only, more specialized help is necessary for optimum design and selection of a lift system.
1. Beam Lift - Although popular for many low and moderate rate liquid production wells, beam lift is
limited for horizontal wells since rod wear and load transfer restricts pump placement to the vertical section of the well.

2. ESP Electrical Submersible Pumps will operate in any position, even fully horizontal, but solids
in the liquid can quickly burn out an ESP if they accumulate in the pump clearances. Gas separation may also cause serious problems in ESPs set in the small clearance of a horizontal wellbore.

3. Gas Lift - Gas lift, long a favorite lift mechanism for vertical wells with solids production, will
operate in any position but gas channeling will create same problems in a gas lift as it does in
normal horizontal flow with the gas channeling along the top of the wellbore or tubing. Supplying
gas to the valves requires either dual strings or isolation in the wellbore.

4. Jet Pump The jet pump is one of the highest probability artificial lift mechanisms for horizontal
wells; but like gas lift, jet pumps require a separate string for supply of power fluid. Installation of
a single string into the horizontal is often difficult, especially in an open hole. Installation of two
separate strings is even more of a risk. One possible advance that may help is a jet pump on a
double string (concentric) coiled tubing. This is under test.

5. Tail Pipe Extension In some instances, extending the production tubing into the low spot in the
horizontal may improve liquid unloading. The correct sizing of tubing and selection of landing
points is critical for some flowing horizontal wells.

8-8

Solids Control Techniques

The control of solids from any formation may require one of several available methods; each with its
own set of advantages and disadvantages. Methods of solids control are discussed here for the purpose of highlighting potential problems.
1. Slotted Liners - Liners with slots from 0.020 in. (0.5 mm) to over 0.25 in. (6.4 mm) have been
used for both formation solids control and wellbore stability control. Sizing a slotted liner for formation particle control is usually a very poor control method, useful in only a handful of formations with large, consistent sand grain size (prevalent in California oilfields in the U.S.). The
screen slot size is useful only ifit is sized small enough to stop the sand. In most formations, this
required slot width would be much smaller than the 0.020 in. (0.5 rnm) slot size that is possible to
cut with standard milling equipment. Slotted liners plug easily when the slot width is larger than
the smallest formation particle. Wellbore stability control is usually involved with keeping a flowpath open when operating in a formation that may spall large pieces of rock into the wellbore.
For these applications, slots of 0.25 in. (6.4 mm) are usually adequate. Besides the formation
particle plugging problems, slotted liners have two other drawbacks; high friction losses from
flow through the slots and weakening of the pipe section. The friction loss depends on flow rate,
fluid viscosity and amount of open slot area. Problems have been encountered with slot plugging
from asphaltene and paraffin in heavy (viscous) oil completions. The pipe strength reduction
problem was first documented in a series of tests that showed a loss of up to 50% of crush
strength when the pipe is rotated. The amount of loss depends on the slotting pattern.
2. Perforated Liners - Liners drilled with up to 100 holes per foot (328 holes per meter) are more
common than slotted liners. The perforated or predrilled liners have no potential for formation
particle control, but may be useful in cases of borehole stability where the fill is large particles.
The rotational strength is good and lateral crush strength is usually very close to undrilled pipe
(within 15%) if the liner separation (in the same longitudinal plane) of the holes is at least 3 in.
(76 mm) between centers for 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) to 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) drilled holes. Specialty liners
with predrilled holes filled with acid dissolvable soft aluminum plugs are available when circulation is required during setting of the liners.

3. Wirewrapped Screens - These screens are made by wrapping a keystone shaped wire around
the base pipe. The wrap design allows better control of formation sands with available openings
down to 0.002 in. Like most slotted or perforated pipe, the flexibility of screens to go through the
bend area is very good, with little or no deformation in tests in a short radius horizontal well at
the Catoosa Test Facility. Rotational strength is not usually a problem since the perforated base
pipe is relatively strong but the outside, wound screen can be damaged by impact or scraping.

4. Prepacked Screens and Resin Coated Sand Liners These are specialty devices that are
designed to stop formation particles. The resin coated sand (usually -40+60 mesh) that covers
the screen or is immediately behind the screen is an added barrier. Screen installation may be
done in any well, but is only practical where:

a. the wellbore diameter can be preserved by gravel packing, or

b. the formation permeability is more than about 1 darcy.
The importance of having a high permeability layer (either gravel or a high permeability formation sand) is apparent only when friction pressures and flow into a very small wellbore is compared to that in a larger wellbore.
I

5. Gravel Packs - Screen and gravel packs are capable of efficiently producing even high rate for-

mations. The main drawbacks to gravel packed completions are cost, difficulty of placement and
partial obstruction of the wellbore.

6. Resin consolidation is usually not a strong option in horizontal wells because of difficulties
applying the process evenly over long sections.

8-9

in

Gravel packs in deviated wellbores need very special design and equipment considerations to
approach complete fill up of the wellbore and coverage of the screen. Wellbore angle has a very dramatic effect upon the placement of gravel. The normal mode of gravel placement in deviated wellbores are described by a number of authors and consists of the gravel forming a dune at the point of
entry into the wellbore with steady dune growth along the length of the assembly toward the bottom of
the well. As fluid flows over the dune, the dune builds until it fills a sufficient amount of the wellbore so
that the remaining channel at the top of the wellbore is only large enough to channel the fluid flow
without allowing gravel dropout or further dune building, Figure 8.21. If excessive leakoff occurs into
the screen through the gravel pack, bridges of gravel will form in the open channel, and the resulting
blockage will stop the flow of the slurry.
Most operators at the current time are packing deviated wellbores with water rather than gelled fluids.
Model runs have highlighted leakoff as critical to insure movement of gravel to any area. Leakoff into
the formation and into the screen help in transport and packing.
The mechanics of flow over the dune of gravel created in the inclined wellbore is a result of a state of
dynamic equilibrium between deposition and suspension of the gravel particles. The equilibrium velocity is the average slurry velocity required to transport the particles along the top of the equilibrium
bank. This velocity is sufficient to prevent concentration of the gravel particles on the face of the dune
but does not direct gravel from the surface of the dune to the inside top surface of the pipe. In simple
words, the dune height (and the remaining distance to the upper pipe wall) depends on the velocity of
the fluid: the faster the liquid moves, the more clearance is created between the top of the dune and
the pipe. Higher injection rates create a short dune and a large open flow path and lower rates create
a higher dune height.
If a dune has been created and is at equilibrium with the flow rate, an increase in the flow rate will create a decrease in the height of the dune, and a new equilibrium will be established.

When this pattern of flow is interrupted by losing fluid movement, the gravel is carried toward the last
available fluid loss area. As the liquid exits the wellbore at the leakoff area, the gravel that was being
carried is stranded at the surface (of the screen or the formation) and the gravel builds up, creating a
blockage or a bridge. As soon as a bridge is created at any place in the wellbore, the liquid can travel
no further than that bridge and the channel at the top of the screen begins filling back toward the top
of the screen. After the gravel has filled the channel to the last place that liquid can leak off, the pressure will rise dramatically because all liquid flow is being forced into linear darcy flow through the
gravel in the wellbore toward the leakoff sites. The pressure rise is so severe that the job cannot usually continue.
Gravel coverage of the screen is necessary for the gravel pack to work correctly. At the point of
screenout in vertical wells (different gravel transport than in deviated wells), the gravel remaining in
the pipe above the screen will fall by gravity onto the top of the gravel pack, adding to the total gravel
depth over the screen. Even in wellbores of 45-75, if sufficient gravel reserve exists above the
screen, the drop or slump of particles may be sufficient to fill up channels left at the top of the dune. In
wellbores over 75, however, if the channels were not packed during the job, the channels will not be
filled by falling gravel.
Fracturing
The considerations involved with horizontal hole stability and initiating a fracture in the deviated well
are closely related. In the deviated well, the well bore is not usually aligned with the plane of the fracture (assumed vertical). Even at deviations of a few degrees, the plane of a vertical fracture will cross
the axis of the hole on a slant and only a few perforations may be in contact with the fracture. This lack
of fracture-to-well bore contact can create areas of restricted fluid entry and lead to stresses placed
on the formation, by the high drawdown across a thin section of formation.
Fracturing of the horizontal wellbores can improve the productivity over that claimed for the unfractured well, especially if long extensions of the horizontal well are used in massive productive sections.

8-10

The productivity improvement available from fracturing the horizontal well will depend upon the orientation of the horizontal hole section in relation to the fracture direction in the reservoir. If the fracture
orientation is along the same path as the horizontal hole, the improvement from fracturing will be small
except where vertical permeability is low or barriers are present. When the path of the horizontal hole
crosses the plane of the fracture at some angle, more substantial productivities are sometimes available. The productivities increase as the angle of the intersection approaches 90".
The occurrence and the direction of natural fractures in the formation may make be a critical difference in the decision of where to place the wellbore. For best hydraulic fracture separation and drainage on a non-naturally fractured formation, the fractures should be at 90" to the wellbore; thus the
hole should be drilled in the direction of omjn because the hydraulic fractures would align in the direction of amin.However, in a naturally fractured formation, one of the biggest advantages of a horizontal
well is that it can be drilled across the plane of natural fractures, which are usually aligned along
omax. The hydraulic fractures, being also aligned along omm,may not intercept many natural fracthe problem disappears.
tures. In the unlikely event of natural fractures not being aligned along, ,Q
In cases where the natural fracture system is extensive and permeable, it is better to drain the natural
fracture system with the wellbore. Where the natural fracture system is small or of similar permeability
to the matrix, a hole placement to favor the hydraulic fracture would be beneficial.
Since an individual fracture at an angle of other than 0"cuts across the wellbore at only one location
in the horizontal example, the flow within the fracture near the wellbore is radial (Figure 8.19) and
exhibits the converging flow associated with formation flow towards an unfractured vertical well. This
type of restriction may appear as damage on very high rate wells. The restriction may be aggravated
by the bending of the fracture near the wellbore. Addition of perforations or slots (from abrasive methods) in the area of the fracture intersection may be beneficial but may not completely solve the problem when high flow rates are experienced. Multiple vertical fractures at regular spacing from a
horizontal well are envisioned as a method of dramatically increasing the processing of certain formations such as low pressure or high viscosity crude reservoirs. In one such example, Strubhar, et
note the placement and isolation testing of four fractures with 45 ft horizontal separation at the wellbore from a 52" inclined hole drilled through the pay in a direction perpendicular to the known fracture
orientation plane. In this test, vertical fractures were successfully placed in individual stimulations
through four separate groups of perforations. Pressure interference tests with special equipment were
used to show that no communication existed between the fractures in the propped areas. Propped
length and height were estimated to be 200 ft and 100 ft, respectively. Operational problems of the
fracture treatment were reported to be minor. Fracturing in highly-deviated or horizontal holes is predicted to be difficult owing to problems of hole cleaning, vertical proppant transport and accurately
estimating pad and flush location.
The connection of the hydraulic fracture from a horizontal well can be a problem. Fracture orientation
may be at some angle to the wellbore. When this occurs, the linear flow down the fracture is forced to
turn radial to enter the formation. With this inward radial flow, pinch points and flow restrictions occur.
Visually it would be better to intersect the wellbore along the wellbore length for a few feet at least
before the fracture turned and oriented into the plane of preference in the formation. Earlier work
allowed perforation in a short interval with high density, however, later experiments seem to be focusing on perforating along the wellbore for several meters to maximize contact and breakdown of the
fracture in the plane of perforations. This would increase wellbore contact even though it is known that
the fracture will turn and follow a plane perpendicular to that of least principle stress as it leaves the
high energy wellbore.
Fracturing has been viewed as somewhere between the savior of failed horizontal wells and a necessary evil in a few more. The elements of fracturing design that change when a well goes from vertical
to horizontal are very few. Typically, problems involved with displacement or channeling of fluid along
the horizontal wellbore dictate that a proppant transport fluid be used rather than a proppant dropout
fluid. If a carrier fluid is used that allows proppant to drop out of suspension, the proppant will build
dunes along the pipe, reducing the amount of prop that can be placed in the fracture and creating a
wellbore cleanout problem. Also, because vertical flow from the fracture comes directly into the well-

8-1 1

bore, proppant flowback can be even more severe, especially with the restrictions and high differential
pressures that are experienced during inward radial flow. In acid fracturing, there are concerns of the
affect of acid on the wall strength of the formation in the near wellbore area, particularly in chalks.
Wellbore isolation is needed in a few horizontal holes. Many companies require the use of a slotted or
drilled liner in the wellbore. Although these liners may prevent catastrophic collapse of the formation,
they prevent effective isolation of any section of the wellbore should water or other undesired fluid
break through in a channel or high permeability streak. Because of the way that drilled or slotted liners
lay along the bottom of the wellbore, flow along the top can often not be detected by conventional logging tools and fluid entry points into the wellbore remain unknown. The flow behavior in Figure 8.12 is a
result of the flow pattern in the well and the isolating effects of the liner. Only where isolation has been
achieved, such as with external casing packers or in the event of wellbore collapse will low rate wells show
large entrance of fluids into the perforated liner at points other than the heel of the well. When slotted or
drilled liners must be used, external casing packers, or ECPs, should be spaced at several points down the
length of the wellbore to allow fluid entry diagnostics and effective treating where required. ECPs are not
foolproof and sliding these rubber covered devices long distances may wear the outer cover. Integrity of
the sealing point must also be examined closely. In most cases, open holes remain the best methods of
establishing a low formation damage completion and allowing options for treatment of the well later on.
Problems in Measuring Flow in a Well
Equipped with a Perforated Liner

Figure 8.12
Water control in a horizontal well is an item that must be considered during the design phase.
Although many horizontal wells were drilled to eliminate or control formation water, there are cases
where high permeability zones or natural fractures will bring in tremendous amounts of water that
must be controlled to maintain effective well production. If ECPs have been used in the design, the
standard control methods of gels, cements, resins or other control devices can be used. If a slotted
liner has been used, then destructive squeezes with cement are about the only option. In open holes,
selective placement of inflatable plugs or even liners may be useful.

Increasing Reservoir Contact

There are several reservoir conditions that can be effectively approached with horizontal wells and a
few that require creative thinking. Vertical permeability barriers are often a limiting factor for horizontal
well development; but in the special case where thick zones are separated by barriers, stacked laterals have found success. Advantages of this method include increased reservoir contact and even
methods of crude isolation, Figure 8.13. With this type of liner isolation, plugs and selective perforating are used to open or close each wellbore.
The main drawbacks in openhole multilaterals is the difficulty in reentering the desired lateral. Most of
the stacked laterals have been done in a single field in the Austin Chalk where thin barriers separate
thick chalk lenses.
The design of Figure 8.14 offers a few advantages over a single horizontal: minimization of contact
time with drilling mud and the ability to use the wellbores in different manners with potentially different
life spans. Forked laterals in the same direction have been used to tap upper and lower members of a
formation. Slanted laterals may be particularly attractive in sloping formations. Recompletions from

8-12

Rd

Parthl llncr
Isolation

Figure 8.13

existing wells can be directed into the updip reservoir, adding reserves to an existing well. The lower
or downdip lateral could be used in unusual cases to accelerate production.

FIIW drllld Ymnl shut on for r a t

Figure 8.14

Many of these topics are considered in the following pages.

Logging
Just as a horizontal well is
a vertical well turned on its side, the tools and techniques that were
successful in damage identification, removal or treating in vertical wells are not necessarily effective
tools in horizontal wells.
Logging of extended highly deviated or horizontal holes is difficult and requires special procedures,
none of which are entirely fool proof.13 The time to log a highly deviated well is increased dramatically
as the hole section passes approximately 50"-55".Several early techniques involved running tools
slick and fast, counting on momentum to carry the tool all the way to the bottom. Success at this operation varied depending upon operator experience and the deviation. Beyond approximately 55",success was very rare. Other methods involving pump down tools were more accepted: however, only
short sections of the hole could be logged before removing a stand of pipe; this required tripping out
the logging tool prior to pipe removal. The basic technique for jointed tubing has been improved by the
use of a device called a side entry sub (Figure 8.15). This device allows the wireline to enter into the
drill pipe at some distance below the surface, allowing several stands of pipe to be removed or added
in any operation, before the logging tool would have to be tripped from the hole.
The specifics of the side entry sub involve placing the side entry sub several stands of tubing down
the hole and feeding the wireline in through the annulus. The wireline enters the tubing at the side
entry and the tool is generally on the end of the tubing being run. The tubing is stopped usually in the

8-13

Figure 8.15: The side entry sub for allowing wireline tool
operation in deviated wells with assistance of
limited tubing movement. The system requires a
wet connect of the wireline to the tool. The side
entry sub Is usually run a few joints below the
rig floor to a depth that matches the distance of
required horizontal movement.

highly deviated section of the hole, and the logging tool may be pumped out the end of the tubing
where it latches in place on the end joint. The location of the side entry sub is generally in the vertical
section of the hole where cable interference and damage is less likely. Placing the side entry sub in
open hole is not recommended.
Coiled tubing with wireline is one of the best methods to convey light loads and small logging tools in
deviated wells. The wireline equipped CT units are capable of quickly handling many of the jobs once
done with the side entry sub. Additional data is available in Chapter 18.
Production logging with either a radioactive tracer tool or a spinner tool may not be accurate in deviated wells. Smolen reports that in the spinner test, the tools that did not capture and measure the
entire casing cross section of fluids did not accurately measure the fluid and gas flowing along the
upper side of the casing. In some wells, there was also counter flow in the same casing string at the
same time; the higher density gas free fluids would downflow on the lower side of the casing while the
gas rich fluids would be flowing up on the upper side of the casing (Figure 8.16). A tool that was
eccentered toward the low side by its weight would indicate predominate downflow, even in the case
where most of the fluid was flowing up the pipe (Figure 8.1 7). The tracer logging tool could also be
hampered by the same flowing conditions and the tracers were also found to adhere to the walls of the
pipe in some instances. Spinner tools with full opening baskets to direct the entire flow into a small
area are an improvement but may not be completely optimum since the back pressure on the well is
changed slightly and because the baskets are not leak proof.
Flow Zones In a Devlated Well
Sormmownunl

Figure 8.16

8-14

--

--.

Tool Position is Critical to What It Measures

Figure 8.17

Wellbore Stability
Wellbore stability has been a hot item of discussion in almost all horizontal well considerations. The
primary question is will the wellbore fail during drilling or during completion? Because of the use of
horizontal wells in formations that do not lend themselves to vertical wells and fracturing, horizontal
wells have penetrated a number of marginally consolidated formations. With the use of top drive rigs,
which allow circulating during the trip, wellbore failure during drilling is becoming more rare. During
production, however, wellbore failures are often not fully investigated because of the use of slotted or
drilled liners. These liners are often used many times by the drilling department as insurance without
consideration of the problems they cause in evaluating or isolating the wellbore. Where wellbore stability is a problem, several potential treatments exist. Where the permeability is very high (above
1 darcy), many companies simply choose to complete openhole with a nondamaging mud system and
then insert a large prepacked screen. Problems have been very common, however, in perforated completions when the perforations collapse or are filled with formation sand. In these cases, the pressure
differential across the perforation becomes so high that the inflow is severely restricted. For these
applications, underreaming or in some cases, gravel packing of the zone should be considered.
The removal of rock by drilling the well disturbs the in situ forces that are in the formation. The redistribution of stresses around the borehole wall can produce unusual concentrations of stress that make
the borehole unstable. In a vertical well, the mud or kill fluid weight is often just enough to offset the
pore pressure. Although in most formations this is an acceptable level, in some deviated wells more
kill fluid weight is needed to support some of the load produced by the stress concentrations. Compressive failures (spalling) of formations at the borehole wall, are a major cause of many hole problems such as tight spots, formation flow and stuck pipe (not differential sticking). The studies of Fuh,
et al.,4 indicate that the borehole failures were progressive (time dependent) and originate in a major
part from the lack of hydrostatic support from the mud and the increased load caused by drilling. The
borehole collapse pressure gradient increases with hole angle while the fracture gradient remains the
same. As a result, the working range between the two gradients is much closer in highly deviated
wells. This makes control of mud density and data gathering a much more critical step in the horizontal completions. In a model based on drilling experience, Fuh, et al., compared mud weights, borehole
collapse pressure gradient, and formation fracture gradient. The in situ stresses and rock strengths
mentioned in their paper were estimated from leakoff data.
Wellbore stability in the deviated well can be an extreme problem because of a variation of stresses
produced by the formations that are exerted at the wellbore. Stress-induced borehole failures can be
grouped into three classes, as described by Bradley,15 Figure 8.1 8.
1. Hole size reduction caused by plastic flow of the formation into the wellbore. This is characteristic of flowing shale, salt and some chalks. Formations affected by this clastic flow usually exhibit
reduced diameter, requiring reaming of the section or, if unattended, causing sticking of the pipe
in some cases.
2. Wellbore enlargement caused by formation failing in a brittle manner and falling into the wellbore. This includes sloughing shale and other types of rock spalling. These problems are usually
seen in wellbores which have exhibited fill between trips, poor directional control, and poor
cementing due to washouts.

8-15

97-8

... .

4.:-*.

with hole collapse in the pay formation were reported at these pressures. When hole stability was a
problem, the zone of instability was in the shale above the pay zone. Successful handling was
approached on minimizing time of exposure (8 days in the US Gulf Coast) rather than increasing mud
weight.
Low water loss cement is needed to prevent thickened cement masses that may block flow. Additives
and technology to prevent the occurrence of free water that would lead to channels along the top of
the horizontal section, are also required. When designing a cement slurry for cementing a highly deviated well, the free water and settling ought to be measured at an angle equal to the maximum well
deviation angle. Both free water and settling are dependent upon the deviation angle, but, as noted by
Parcevaux, in a totally horizontal cylinder, free water is difficult to collect since it may be consumed by
chemical contraction. The only way to measure the free water may be by measuring the bulk volume
change. Water losses of less than 50 cc/30 min are desired.
Perforating
Perforating in a horizontal well may not seem different at first glance from the same process in a vertical well. The attributes of the horizontal well which make it extremely attractive for fluid recovery and
reservoir management can be controlled or enhanced only to a small amount by the selection of perforating equipment. However, after consideration of the impact of perforating on the other phases of horizontal completion, a clearer picture is formed of the importance and the differences of the perforating
treatment.
Although perforating may be used in open holes as a stimulation or damage bypass technique, it is
required for cased holes to establish fluid entry. The use of casing is less common than open hole or
slotted liner completions, but has advantages in some unstable formations or where zone isolation in
the horizontal section is critical to the success of the well.
The basics of perforating are altered somewhat by the decentralization of both the casing and the perforating gun in the horizontal wellbore. The use of a phased perforating gun for the obvious flow
enhancement benefits, highlights the problem of clearance distance on the performance of the perforating charge. A more complete explanation is available in the chapter on perforating. Gun clearance,
that distance from the outside of the perforating gun to the inside wall of the casing, affects both the
perforation entrance hole diameter and the penetration. Since the gun is forcibly decentralized in any
wellbore with even a few degrees inclination, clearance distances must be considered. The effect of
increased clearances on performance of charges results in smaller diameter and shallower holes. If
hole size and penetration are important, then the effects decentralization of the gun must be part of
the design. In most cases, the largest gun that can be fished is recommended. The effects of casing
centralization in the borehole may also be a factor, especially where enlarged holes are encountered.
Perforating design in these sections must consider penetration through the thicker cement sheath that
invariably surrounds the top surface of any part of the pipe in a deviated h01e.l~
Positioning perforating guns in the horizontal well is a challenge on two fronts; gun conveyance and
depth control. Wireline is very troublesome past about 55" of hole deviation. Tubing conveyed perforating (TCP) and coiled tubing are presently being used in horizontal wells to move guns. Tubing conveyed systems are expensive but have the advantages of strength and almost unlimited gun choices,
while coiled tubing offers cost and time advantages, but only with smaller, lighter gun systems.
Depth control or gun positioning in the horizontal section is complicated because the gamma ray log,
the traditional depth control device, may show less formation character variation in some wells as the
hole turns horizontal. The problems of wireline conveyance of perforating guns also applies to other
logging tools such as the collar locator or the porosity logging tools, that might be used for positioning
in the horizontal section. For the horizontal hole, either accurate tubing length measurements in the
TCP string or other logging conveyance systems are needed. The importance of depth or position
accuracy will depend upon the homogeneity of the formation and the emphasis on accuracy in placing
perforations for gravel packing or fracturing. TCP completions where depth control is necessary, MWD
technology or wet connect and sidedoor tools'3 are necessary to log the position of the gun. With the

8-17

coiled tubing placement technique, tubing is available with logging line inserted through the tubing. In
horizontal wells, especially where depth control is critical, the use of a short joint or pup joint in the
casing string is a requirement to mark the start of the pay zone. Locating the pup joint does require a
collar locator.
Perforating the horizontal well requires special equipment or methods in two primary areas; gravel
packing and fracturing completions. Gravel packing requires selection of whether an upper bank of
holes (pointing straight up) can be effectively filled with gravel. Although one line of thought and tests
says that the upper bank of perforation tunnels can be filled with gravel,18 most of the literature lists
the upper hole packing as difficult at best.9120Many operators have elected to eliminate the upper
bank of holes. The problem of gun orientation to properly align the downward patterns has been
approached through the use of swivels,21 and positive locator devices to release torque built up in the
string. Failure to release this stored torque may result in a twisted gun body and holes in a random
order.
The second problem, that of perforating before fracturing in the horizontal hole, is dependent upon the
expected fracture direction and its relationship to the plane of the wellbore. The two fracture/wellbore
orientations of Figure 8.19. illustrate this problem. If the horizontal wellbore is placed parallel to the
plane of fracture direction (perpendicular to the plane of least principle stress), the fracture may lie
along the wellbore for a large part of its length. In this case, a normal perforation density of 4 to 8
shots per foot is adequate to establish communication with the wellbore without a large pressure drop
at the wellbore. If, however, the plane of the fracture and the plane of the wellbore differ by even a few
degrees, the resultant contact of the wellbore and the fracture will be a pinch point of a few inches of
total contact area. This limited fracture/wellbore contact area may result in large pressure drops and
the indication of damage from a buildup test. To partially relieve the contact problem and the resultant
pressure drop, a high density perforating effort at the fracture exit point should be considered. This
type of perforating dictates that the fracture contact point be selected and only that zone be perforated
before the frac. For multiple fracture completions from the same wellboreZ only the point to be fractured should be perforated prior to each fracturing treatment. Wellbore isolation between the target
zone and the fractured is also needed.

Figure 8.19: Two of several possible fracture intersections with the

wellbore. At maximum contact (above) the fracture flow
into the wellbore is linear but drains the same pattern as
the wellbore. The minimum contact (bottom) drains a
different area but offers a pinch point of radial flow for
fluid entry into the wellbore.
Corrosion/Erosion

Some corrosion problems may be more severe highly deviated wells. In a corrosion study of wells in
the North Sea, it was found that in all cases of deviation more than 20, a preferential erosion or corrosion/erosion attack occurred as troughs of 1 in. or more width, Figure 8.20, always on the low side
of the hole.23 Production of solids increased the rate of erosion.

8-18

Figure 8.20:

Figure 8.21:

Corrosion or abrasion on the low side of tubing. The causes of abrasion are rod guide or
coupling wear. Corrosion patterns are caused
by water running along the low side.

Dune formation during gravel packing in a horizontal wellbore. The

upper drawing shows the gravel being swept along and dropping over
the edge of the dune (alpha wave or dune). The open area above the
gravel is a function of the Injection rate. The lower drawing shows the
channel filling with gravel as the flow dehydrates (leakoff) during the
final stages (beta wave or dune).

Gravel Packs
Gravel packing a horizontal, although not always necessary, is possible and has been done on numerous occasions in pays in the Congo, Trinidad and the US Gulf Coast. The packing proceeds as a dune
formation, Figure 8.21 , first packing the lower part of the wellbore as gravel drops out of the carrier
fluid and then rapidly back packing the upper section as the gravel slurry dehydrates due to leakoff.
Leakoff to the formation and through the screen is required for a tight pack.
Coning Control
Gas and water coning control with horizontal wells is possible and most of the early horizontal wells
were drilled with coning control as a major consideration. Gige$4v25 theorizes that the coning control
in the horizontal well is better because a lower drawdown is required for a given rate and the pressure
gradient is nearly linear, almost to the boundaries of the drainage area. Addington supplied gas coning
correlations for coring in Prudhoe Bay.57 The following equation estimates production from a vertical
well without gas coning.2627

8-19

1.535(p0-Pg)k0[h- ( h - D ) 2 ]
Qmax =

where:
h
D
Q,

= reservoir height, ft
= distance between the gas-oil interface and the top of perfs, ft
= oil production rate without coning, bbl/D

po
pg

= oil density, gm/cc

= gas density, gm/cc

k
= perm, darcy
To calculate Q,
for a horizontal well, substitute the effective wellbore radius, rWaeff
for r, Joshi submits the following equation for a comparison of maximum flow rates in horizontal and vertical wells.

[h2-

Qmaxl
Qmax]

h
v

(h-

D1)2]/n

DI

'e
[ h 2 - ( h - D ) 2 ]In 7

'

( w,eff)

where f? represents the distance between the horizontal well and the gas-oil interface, Figure 8.22. A
horizontal well can theoretically produce oil at a higher rate than a vertical well without coning or the
horizontal interface can be closer to the problem zone than perfs in a vertical well and produce at the
show the comparison of critical coning rates for horizontal and vertical
same rate.25 Sherrard., et
wells as a ratio plotted against horizontal well length for various ratios of vertical-to-horizontal permeability, Figure 8.23. It is this vertical permeability that is critical for the success or failure of a horizontal
well. If the vertical permeability is high, the horizontal well can drain the formations, but is the vertical
permeability is low, less than 50% of the horizontal permeability, the horizontal well may need to be
fractured to be comparable to the performance of a fractured vertical well. Reservoir modeling is
needed in these cased to predict well performance.

oil

I
r

* .....- - . . . .

r ~ r h .

. .. r

(Joshi, SPE 15375)

Figure 8.22: Gas coning schematic illustrating distance to the gas zone
for a vertical and a horizontal well.

8-20

Kv 1%

QW'QcV

= Horizontal Well Critical Coning Rate

OCv = Vertlcal Well Critical Coning Rate
Oil Column Thickness = 200 Feet
PenetrationRatio = 0.15

0,

I#)
.75

0
25

.10

6
5

4
3

500 600 700 800 900 1000 HOa 1200 1300 1400 1500

ORAINHOLE LENGTH (ft)

(Shenard, et al.)

Figure 8.23: Comparison of critical coning rates for various values of

vertical and horizontal permeability.

Heading Problems
One of the more serious problem areas in horizontal well completions is heading. A heading problem
is an intermittent slug of liquid propelled by a gas pressure rather than moving evenly up the tubing.
The liquid accumulates in a low area such as an undulating wellbore or at a low point and is regularly
propelled out as a slug when gas pressure builds up to a sufficient point to push the liquids into the
next section of the hole. When a slug of liquid enters the bottom of the tubing, the pressure at surface
may react wildly. This type of flow is not continuous and does not optimize production. It may also
damage lift equipment and surface equipment.

Multi-lateral Completions
A multi-lateral completion is any well with two or more lateral departure wells drilled from a common
trunk. The laterals may be vertical, deviated or horizontal and in the same or different planes. Both
cased and openhole laterals have been completed.
Multi-lateral wells are usually required where the reservoir has natural compartments that inhibit fluid
drainage. Spotting these compartments can often be accomplished from logs, DSTs, and P/Z versus
cumulative production plots as shown.
Decline Curve (PE v.. Gum. Q) for Homogeneous and ComparbnentalizedReservoir
with Limited Connection to the Main Re8snolr and Wellbore

8-21

Once the compartment has been identified, it must be located (deposition data, geology, and well testing) and a multiple wellbore design created to fit the reservoir needs.
Multi-laterals or any multi-legged well, may be also used to solve other problems. Some uses are:
where surface area or platform drilling slots are limited; where upper hole conditions make drilling difficult or expensive (Le., there is an economic need to use the existing wellbore; where multiple reservoirs exist as stacked or separated horizons; or where enhanced recovery operations can benefit.
The technical challenges presented by multi-laterals include: the location of the junction, the requirements for a pressure seal, the need to re-enter the wellbore and the need to commingle or separate
flow. Once each of these needs have been evaluated, the multi-lateral design process can start.
Multi-lateral technology encompasses both multiple wellbores and the methods to isolate and re-enter
the wellbores if required. The isolation and re-entry needs were considered by an industry focus group
(Tarnil) and numeric levels were assigned to help with description. Those designations, shown in the
following data are simple, but adequately describe most multi-lateral needs.
Lateral Technology Levels

Level 1 - Open/UnsupportedJunction
Level 2 - Mother Bore Cased & Cemented, Lateral Open
Level 3 - Mother Bore Cased & Cemented, Lateral Cased but not Cemented
Level 4 - Mother Bore & Lateral Cased & Cemented
Level 5 - Pressure Integrity at Junction (not cement)
Level 6 - Pressure Integrity at Junction achieved with casing
Level 6s - Downhole Splitter
The decision of what type of multi-lateral well may be best suited for a particular environment can best
be made after examining the local well specifics, plus a general candidate list of relationships.
First, it is useful to examine the basic types of multi-lateral wells.
The stacked multi-lateral, Figure 1, is used to complete reservoirs that have a one or two major barriers to vertical flow.

Figure 1: A stacked multi-lateral well.

Sealing at the lateral departures is necessary only when there are:

1. pressure variances between the zone that prevent commingling of fluids.
2. fluid compatibility problems such as scale or organic deposits that prevent mixing of fluids.
Since sealing of the lateral departure is both difficult and very expensive, it is only recommended
where absolutely necessary.
The opposed multi-lateral wells, Figure 2A are used in a number of environments where extended
reach from a central wellbore is necessary or where extremely high rate liquid wells cause sever pressure drops along a single long horizontal or highly deviated wellbore. Using two 1500 ft laterals
instead of one 3000 ft lateral cuts the backpressure felt at the toe of the lateral by limiting the friction
pressure

8-22

Figure 2A:An opposed multi-lateral.

In a special case of the opposed multi-lateral, designs have been proposed that go up-dip and downdip, Figure 2B,in a formation with sloping beds. The upward lateral may be useful to recover reserves
above the water-oil contact in an active water drive formation.

Figure2B:An opposed lateral in a dipping

formation.

Combinations of stacked and opposed laterals, Figure 3, have been drilled, however, in the complexity of the numerous kickoff points there is always a potential for loosing the well during drilling or a
workover. Relatively few of these wells have been drilled and none are known to have successfully
been reentered for a workover in each leg.

Figure 3: A stacked and opposed multilateral.

In a branched, forked or birds foot multilateral, Figure 4, there are two or more laterals in the same
plane. This is among the simplest of the multilateral wells, but more than two laterals may cause production interference. Reservoir modeling is necessary to determine number and position of the laterals in this type of arrangement.
Multiplanar multilaterals, Figure 5 , are becoming more common as a simple method of draining wells,
that have barriers. These wells offer the advantages of fewer wellbore entry points, a definite advantage that lowers risk of entering the wrong lateral or of loosing the wellbore entirely (when multiple
entries are considered).

8-23

Figure 4A:A forked multilateral in the same

plane.

Figure 4B:A branched multilateral reaching

two separate structures.

/ / / / / / I / / / /
Figure 5: A multiplanar multilateral.

Candidate List
The candidate list for design is still forming but has the following considerations:
1. If workovers or reentries are expected, drill a path that can be completed as needed are worked

over as dictated by the well.

2. No pressure isolations devices or techniques are normally used unless there is a demonstrated

need.
3. No screens or liners (slotted or perforated) are used unless these are a demonstrated need.
4. Limit the number of wellbore kickoffs to a minimum. This protects the well and makes reentry

easier.
5. The well specifics and number of barriers (small and large) that limit vertical flow sets the lateral
placement and the rest of the design.

a. For numerous barriers and where water coning is not a problem, a slightly slopping wellbore
is considered.
b. For few barriers and relatively thin zones, multiplanar wells are considered, particularly
where reentry will be a possibility. If reentry is not important, and barriers are hundreds of
feet thick, stacked multilaterals are a possibility. In any multiplanar well, lift must be
addressed.

8-24

Figure 8.26: A forked or birds foot multi-lateralwell usually has all the laterals in the same horizontal plane. It is often used to develop flank reserves or fault-bounded blocks of a reservoir.

c. When friction pressure along the lateral in high rate oil wells keep the toe from producing,
opposed multilateral are needed.
d. Branched, forked or birds foot multilateral are used in single zones, (without barriers to
enhance production in a single zone), to reach flank areas or reach multiple structures.

Thermal Completions

When steam or combustion is planned, special completions are needed. Heat reduces crude oil viscosity. This is necessary when there is little or no driving energy to propel a low gravity oil toward the
wellbore. Heat loss wide temperature extremes, stimulation, gravel packs, and increased corrosion
are problems that involve well completions engineers.
Steam Projects

Although there are instances of steam use for well flow improvement as far back as the 1930s,the
controlled application of steam was not implemented until 1959.30 Since that time, both steam drive
and cyclic steam injection have been tried with varying success. The type of steam drive will make a
difference as to how the well is completed. Cyclic steam injections or huff and puff operations utilize
injections of steam over a period of time followed by a flow period where the heated oil flows into the
~ e l l b o r eIn
. ~this
~ operation, the cyclic changes of temperature in the well will produce stress forces in
the casing and tubing in a cemented well and pipe movement in an uncemented well. Attempts to control these forces include use of sliding sleeves or other tools that permit expansion and contraction of
pipe, allowing the casing to expand out of the ground, and prestressing the casing to compensate for
the forces created in the cyclic heat pattern. Special sliding seal assemblies and slip joints are typical
in tubing strings in thermal completions. These tools act as an expansion joint to permit free movement of the tubing and relieve the compressive or tensile loading. The sliding sleeve assemblies are
seldom used in casing operations since failed joints would be difficult to replace.
Steam drive projects use a pattern of injectors and producers and may significantly raise the temperature of a large section of the field.75 The temperatures experienced by the tubing strings in a steam
drive are more constant than in a cyclic operation. Temperatures of 240C (464F) have been
rep~rted.~

8-25

Combustion Projects

In-situ combustion projects may offer the most severe test of temperature induced changes in a well.
The in-situ combustion principles were first field tested in 1958?*B3 The injection/ignition wells are
usually completed open hole to facilitate the large volume of injected air and to prevent severe casing
damage. Producers may also be completed open hole if the formation is competent and if the afterburn formation has sufficient strength to allow safe plugging of the well. Gravel packing operations
may be used on either producers or injectors but the solubility of silica in hot water or steam can make
the pack short lived.
The operating period of a combustion well may be divided into a cool period and a hot period. During
early stages, while the front is advancing away from an injector and towards a producer, the well operates normally and is in the cool mode. As the combustion front nears and distillates breakthrough to
the producer, the temperature will climb and excess gas may lock pumps and create emulsions. After
the front arrives, the well can often be operated as a flowing well. Water is often injected at the surface
into the annulus to control bottomhole temperature (annulus open at the bottom).
Placement of the wells in an in-situ combustion is also a critical factor. The best results have been
. ~ ~spacing
~ ~ must be sufficient to
reported with up-dip injectors that allow a top to bottom b ~ r nPattern
give the heated gasses time to transfer heat to the oil. Monitor wells are often used to track the temperature and thus the combustion front of the fireflood. Completion of these wells is usually made with
heat resistant casing top set on the formation and completed open hole. It is not uncommon in fire
floods to destroy the integrity of the casing in monitor wells as the fire flood front passes. Peak temperatures may exceed 1600F (870C).36
Wet combustion is a modification of in-situ combustion. In this technique, also called a combination
thermal drive, CTD,% a heat pad is first established with dry in-situ combustion. After the heat-up,
water is injected and in-situ steam is created. Whether the combustion is allowed to continue burning
or air injection is stopped defines the difference between the CTD and COFCAW (quenched) processe~.~~
Alternate Heating Methods

Application of heat at the wellbore from direct fired heaters is one method of locally applying heat to
solve paraffin or heavy crude problems at the ~ e l l b o r e Heat
. ~ ~loss
~ ~ in
~ the tubing is eliminated with
downhole burners, but the total energy that can be applied with the tool is also less. Whether these
tools are meant to supply heat from the burning process or steam from a downhole steam generator,
the local heat can be quite high, causing tubular expansion/contraction and localized corrosion by byproducts in the exhaust gas.
Downhole electrical resistance heaters have also been mentioned although electrical power losses
through the supply cables are usually prohibitive for most applications involving large heat requirements. At least one method uses the casing as a electrical conductor.
Stimulation

Fracturing may occur as the result of steam injection, both accidental and as a stimulation mechanism. Subsurface and surface heaving caused by steam has been traced by the use of tilt meter^.^'
The fractures are often useful to facilitate heat transfer to a larger section of the reservoir.40 Fracturing
stimulation design or application does not radically change for steam completions, but the fracture
length is dictated by needs of heat transfer rather than economics of inflow. One of the most serious
problem faced in stimulating thermal wells is the thermal decomposition of the proppant. The proppant
or gravel decomposition is caused by reaction of silica with the basic steam condensate.

8-26

Many of the feed waters used to produce steam contain naturally occurring bicarbonate ion, HCO-3.
During steam generation, thermal degradation of HCO-3 ions in the feed water produces CO2 and OH. The OH- ions remains dissolved in the aqueous phase in those operations that produce less than
100% steam. Water with the OH- ions is highly alkaline and will dissolve (and possibly reprecipitate) a
large amount of silica. The source of silica may be from either the formation or the proppant pack from
a gravel pack. Solubility of silica goes up rapidly for increasing temperature, Figure 8.27.41*42Use of
sintered bauxite and alumina pellets have also been proposed since the materials are stable in dry,
high temperature environment^.^' In wet conditions, these materials are also influenced by high pH,
Figure 8.28, although not nearly to the extent of the silica (sand) solution.
In longer term, high temperature tests with highly concentrated brines at high temperatures, more dissolution has been reported. To control the disintegration of the proppant, the HCO-3 ions should be
removed before steam is created or the pH should be balanced. The problem is made even more critical in low strength formations where the effects of dissolution of silica in the formation can be very
noticeable.42
Other types of fracturing such as explosive stimulation have been attempted in the hot environments
without much success.43

TEMPERATURE (F)
(Underdown & Dias)

Figure 8.28: The solubility of quartz increases rapidly in

any type of water as temperature increases.

Corrosion and Scale

Scale formation is a common byproduct of many high temperature completions. Cooling of the wellbore during the production phase of a huff and puff operation may deposit scale, paraffin, or asphaltic
materials at some point of the tubulars. This deposition is usually more severe in certain stages of the
production, typically toward the last of the production cycle when the temperature of the fluid being
produced has fallen significantly from the start of the cycle. Additives to the steam during steam injection or a macaroni string down the outside of the tubing are common treatments. Solvents are used for
paraffin and asphaltenes removal, usually during the initial phase of steam injection in the next cycle.
Steam can alter surfactant adsorption and efficiency.

8-27

Sample
Sintered bauxite
20/40 US mesh

High-alumina beads
20/40 US mesh

Temp
StjO to 600
560 to 600
560 to 600

Time
( 2 hrs
72 hrs
72 hrs

560 to 600
560 to 600
560 to 600

72 hrs
72 hrs
72 hrs

pH
/

9
11

Weight Loss
0./
1.3

3.5

7
9

2.3
2.4

11

3.7

Figure 8.27: Weight Loss of Bauxitic Material in Steam

Data on corrosion is difficult to correlate in thermal projects because of the independent nature of
most thermal completions and the variability of corrosion itself. Holes in the production tubing are usually noted by a sudden increase in the gadoil ratio. Failures in the casing as usually accompanied by
a change in the WOR or WGR ratio if no packer is set or a back pressure change. A string check may
be made by setting an inflatable packer or profile plug in the bottom of the string. Checks of individual
sections are made possible by straddle packers or packer and plug sets on coil tubing. Impression
packers and special corrosion surveys are also available.
Acidizing in thermal operations can produce severe corrosion. Hydrochloric acid spends extremely
rapidly at higher temperatures and it is difficult to inhibit. Other forms of both mineral and organic acid
are available and have much lower reaction rates towards steel and other commonly used metals than
the mineral HCI. Acetic, a formic (organic acids) and phosphoric (an inorganic acid), are only effective
when the damage is acid soluble. The byproducts of the reactions such as phosphoric acid combining
with calcium carbonate to produce the precipitate calcium phosphate must be considered before a
stimulation system is selected. A drawback of steam input is the in-situ generation of CO2 and H2S.
These gases pose metallurgical problems that must be addressed in tubular selection.30
Insulation

Because the heated fluid is expensive and the production tends to become viscous upon cooling, the
use of insulated tubulars are recommended whenever a thermal operation is c ~ n s i d e r e dThese
.~~~~~
tubulars may cut heat loss from the tubing as much as 70-90% depending upon the type and thickness
of insulation and the depth and surroundings of the well.
Tubular Design

Tubular design43i46-50and cementing considerations43949

are among the major well completion considerations in thermal completions. Thermal cycling, fluctuating operating pressures, cement strength,
and were from tubing movement are major casing concerns while thermal stress and increased corrosion dominate tubing and packer selection.
Temperatures are more steady in continuous steam injection, and the tubular forces are usually only
accounted for during the startup and cool off period at the end of a project or during an interruption.
Even in a continuous operation however, allowance must be made for shut downs due to mechanical
problems.
Cyclic steam injection imposes stress patterns that cause either buckling or threaded joint jumpout.
After an extensive downhole TV camera study, H ~ l l i d a concluded
y~~
that most failures were actually
tension failures. The failures were most often seen at the joint and involved:
1. Tensile failure in the last engaged pin thread.

8-28

2. Tensile failure by pin end jump-out.

3. Joint failure by closing of the coupling stand-off clearance.

H ~ l l i d a notes
y ~ ~ that the thermal well casing failures were tensile in nature. Casing was shown to
plastically deform during the heating cycle and then develop tensile loads in excess of the joint
strength during cooling. Tensile failure could be avoided by limiting the total axial stress change to the
sum of the elevated temperature yield strength and the allowable connection strength. The number
obtained is limited by the body tensile yield strength. This work has led to the prestressed casing
design that is the most typical completion mechanisms. Since many thermal projects are often borderline economic, casing failures in non critical areas of the string (where leaks, cross flow, and collapse
are not problems) are often not repaired. In some cases, the casing immediately above the pay in a
cemented, low porosity and low permeability section, may even be notched by abrasively cutting out
an entire section to allow some expansion and contraction of the casing.
The failure of the string by tensile forces is usually in the form of joint pullout at a connection. The tensile forces produced in a string are at a maximum at the minimum temperature of a thermal cycle, as
shown previously. The maximum temperature of the cycle influences the strength of the pipe, however, and may contribute to the tensile failure by yielding the string at the c ~ n n e c t i o n .Generally,
~~
casing strings that did not fail by joint pullout after the first thermal cycle will probably not fail at the
joint as long as the maximum temperature of the first cycle is not exceeded.51 The cycle is not endless; if the stress on the last engaged thread at the coupling approaches the minimum yield strength of
the casing, the joint will eventually fail by cyclic fatigue after some number of cycles. Joint life is further reduced by corrosion, often cutting the number of cycles in half.51 One estimate of joint life, corrected for estimated corrosion, is 10 to 20 cycles.51 The number of cycles can be increased by using a
premium thread connection.

As the well heats up, the casing expands and experiences a compressive load, up to the point of failure dictated by the yield strength or until it buckles. When the well cools, tension loads are developed.
The simplest casing completions for shallow wells is to leave the top part of the pipe free to expand
above the cemented section isolating the pay. This allows the wellhead to move upward, sometimes
as much as a few feet, during the hot cycle and to shrink back toward the ground during the cool
cyc ~e.5*
If the casing is fully cemented (or cemented at both ends) and is not allowed to expand, the stress is:
o

= &(AT)

or
O

= (6.9 X 10-6) (30 X 106) (AT) = 200 AT

where:
o

= stress (psi)

a
AT

= coefficient of thermal expansion, 6.9 x 1 0-6 inches/in./"F for steel.

= Youngs modulus, 30 x 1O6 psi for steel.

= increase in temperature over the average formation temp., OF

Note that the stress induced by temperature change is independent of the tube length.
The steam injection pressure will be one of the factors of selection for grade of tubing and casing. The
minimum temperatures for producing a yielding force in casing can be estimated from the casing
strength. Since each one degree Fahrenheit rise produces a compressive stress of 200 psi, the minimum temperature increase that an N-80 string can tolerate without buckling is about 80,000/200 =
400F.51 Other estimates may produce slightly higher values.% As previously shown, yield and tensile

8-29

strengths vary with initial t e m p e r a t ~ r e Suggested

.~~
yield strength design curves for several grades of
casing are given in Figure 8.29.50

700
900

lW.310
78.545

124.650
92.145

761800
51,400

24,100
19200

212 5
21.5

76.2
77.3

277
277

Figure 8.29: Elevated Temperature Tensile Properties of Various Grades of Seamless Casing and
Tubing (after Youngstown)

Compressive forces may buckle casing in long unsupported sections that are fixed on both ends.
Figure 8.30 predicts temperature changes that will cause buckling by compressive loading.51The uniform loading in the second column assumes full cement contact. A complete cement job can prevent
lateral casing movement only if the formation is competent. If the cement deteriorates because of heat
or other factor, buckling can result.51 Heating of the casing in slant hole sections may also produce
uneven loading and accelerate buckling.

Grade
(spec)

Allowable Temperature Change

Minimum Yield
Stress (psi)
I

N
S

53,000
80,000

95,000

23 I

2f5

346
410

400
475

Cementing Considerations

Thermal completions can have a severe impact on the strength of cement as the temperature
increases beyond about 250F. Portland cement for high temperature wells usually contains a stabilizing additive such as silica flour. Other cements based on pozzolan, lime or other chemistries are also
available.49r54Slurry properties and set strengths of some of these mixtures are contained in
Figure 8.31. The most stable of the mixtures is the calcium aluminate cement, a refractory cement, but
it is also the one with the lowest strength.

8-30

(from Gain, et al.)

Figure 8.31: Slurry properties and strengths of set high temperature cement.

Completions

Three possibilities exist for improving casing life in steam injection?

1. Prestress the casing to prevent the string from exceeding the yield strength at the maximum cas-

ing temperature.
2. Reduce stress by anchoring the casing at the bottom and allowing the wellhead to rise and contract as needed.
3. Increase the yield strength of the casing.
4. Liner failure may be reduced by hanging the liner off bottom to allow for downward expansion.

5. To minimize casing damage during well killing operations, the hot well should be killed by pumping liquid into the casing rather than by venting gas off the casing.
6. For design of thermal expansion forces, use the maximum extremes of temperature. Expansion
joints and seal bore assemblies are the best methods of handling tubing movement. The units do
have to be trimmed for thermal service and seal life is often short.43

7. Use of a thermal packer can reduce temperature of the casing and cement sheath by 120F and
thermal stresses by as much as 20,000 psi.53
Prestressing casing requires careful selection of joint and coupling and a two-stage cement job. The
amount of prestress may also be limited by the collapse design. Loads on a 7 in. string, for example,

8-3 1

that would see 500F might require up to 300,000 Ibs. This would require the use of hydraulic jacks on
the string during setting.

Coalbed Methane Wells

Production of methane gas from coal-bearing formations has been an active dream since the early
1950s and a reality since the 1 9 8 0 ~ . ~Approximately
~-~~.
6,000 coalbed methane wells have been
drilled in the U.S. The majority of this work has been aimed at relatively shallow coal sections where
the gas is adsorbed onto the surface of the coal. These coal wells have a number of unique properties
that must be considered during planning, drilling, completing, stimulating and production.
Coal is a microporous formation possessing a rather large internal surface area but a rather small typical porosity. The average porosity is approximately 1-1/2 to 3% and almost all of the permeable, connected porosity is in the form of fractures within the coal. Gas is adsorbed onto the coal surfaces in a
condensed or liquid-like phase.93 This is entirely different from a normal reservoir rock where the gas
exists in a free state within the pores of the rock or in solution in one of the liquids that exists in the
pores.
There will be more than methane gas within the formation. Nitrogen, methane and CO2 are relatively
common gases, and each sorbed within the rockOg3
Face and butt (secondary) cleat or fracture systems are the primary and secondary natural fracture
permeability avenues in which gas and liquids flow through the coaLS4The fracture systems are generally perpendicular to bedding planes, and the shorter length butt cleats end against the longer length
face cleats. The presence of cleats or fractures is required to make a coal productive. The amount of
cleats influences both the permeability and, to some extent, the available sites for methane storage.
The primary drilling problems encountered while drilling coalbed methane (CBM) wells include largevolume water flow, overpressured gas kicks, wellbore stability and formation damage from drilling,
completion and production operation^.^^ Coal reservoirs are not homogeneous and may have widely
different reservoir and geologic characteristics within the same production area. Most coal reservoirs
are not single coal seams but numerous thin coal sections interbedded with shale and other formations. The characteristics which influence the reservoir quality and reserves of a CBM well include
fracture presence and extent or permeability, pressure, fluid saturations, gas type and amount, relative permeability, and other geologic characteristics.
Before the gas can be produced from a coalbed methane formation, the pressure generally has to be
drawn down sufficiently to allow the gas to desorb from the f o r m a t i ~ n This
. ~ ~ operation generally
requires a relatively long-term production of water from the well. Peak production may not occur for
three to four years after the start of production. Production of water usually requires the utilization of
some form of artificial lift. The most popular lift mechanisms for coalbed methane wells include beam
pumping and progressive cavity pumps. A typical production profile for a coalbed methane well is
seen in Figure 8.32. In this figure, water production starts at a relatively high rate and usually
decreases with time as the water level in the reservoir is drawn down. Pressure is also decreasing
during this time, allowing the gas to desorb from the surface of the rock, increasing until it finally
reaches a stable production stage and then declining with depletion of the gas resource. Coalbed
methane wells can produce for very long periods of time and produce significant reserves. Lowering
the water saturation within the reservoir also increases the reservoirs relative permeability to gas
which increases the ability of desorbed gas to flow through the natural fracture system to the wellbore.
For this reason, it is imperative that the wellbores be kept free of water to avoid creating a lower relative permeability to gas around the immediate wellbore.
The basic investigation tools for coalbed methane wells are the same ones that are used in other formations. The log responses in the following paragraphs are summaries from an article by Scholes and
Johnston in an AAPG bulletin.95 In coals, the resistivity log readings will vary as a function of log type

8-32

Decllno

staw

0
U
Q

'

z0U

El

>

Time
Figure8.32: General time line of events in the life of a coal well
(from AAPG #38).91

and the mud or mud filtrate that invades the cleat system. If the cleats are narrow, only the mud filtrate
will invade the cleat system, and the mudcake can be detected by a response on the microresistivity
logs. In this case, the shallower reading resistivity logs will read a lower value than the deep reading
resistivity logs. This is due to mudcakes being lower resistivity than the coal. Clays may also cause
the resistivity logs to read low. This is due to the presence of bound conductive water associated with
the clays.
Gamma ray tools will usually read very low counts per second in the coal because of lack of natural
radioactive elements. Coals with significant amounts of clay will read much higher.95
Acoustic and sonic logs may read much higher porosities in the coal. The amount of clay does not typically have an effect on these logs within the coal seam because the apparent porosity of pure clay is
in the same range as the apparent porosity of coal. Presence of fine-grained sand may reduce the
apparent sonic logsg5
Neutron logs may read high apparent porosities in coals. This is because they generally regard hydrogen as an indication of porosity and coal is high in hydrogen content. The clay content of coal does not
have a large effect on the neutron predicted porosity.95
Density logs may read low density because of the high matrix density of coal. This may give a false
high apparent porosity. Ash content and fine-grained quartz sand can cause the density to go up substantially. A coal formation with significant amounts of ash or fine-grained sand shows a much lower
porosity (higher density) than is true for the coal sample. Photoelectric (Pe) curve associated with a
density log usually reads in the range of 0.1 7 to 0.2 in pure coals. Ash will cause a deflection from
these values depending on the elemental makeup of the ash. Usually the Pe of ash minerals is ten
times the Pe of
Natural gamma ray spectroscopy logs convert the naturally occurring gamma radiation into the most
likely elemental composition that would emit the gamma rays. The response depends upon the elemental model that is used for the particular logging tool. Since pure coal does not contain sizable
quantities of most of these radioactive elements, the logs typically show low values. Presence of clay

8-33

would increase the radioactive reading, and fine-grained sand might lower the reading unless the
sand is an ash compound which has radioactive elements associated with it.95
Induced gamma ray spectroscopy logs will generally respond with good accuracy to coal. These logs
may help identify coal from key element analysis of carbon, hydrogen, etc. A high ash component
(including clay minerals) would have the effect of indicating more elements, or higher percentage of
those elements, on the induced gamma ray spectroscopy logsg6
Coalbed methane wells require stimulation or special completion techniques to effectively connect the
wellbore to the reservoir. A variety of these completions and stimulations have been tried, and many
are significant only in a particular field or even an area of a particular field. In general, the completion
mechanisms are (from Palmer et al.):
1. Openhole cavity. These cavity completions may be very prolific producers of natural gas. The

cavity is generally formed by surging the well in inward flow, and cleaning the wellbore by high
rate flow or a bit run. The cavity completions may extend several feet into the reservoir, and are
one of the lowest damage completions available. They are good when the permeability of the
formation is relatively high and the natural fracture system is extensive.
2. Polymer fracture treatments. Fracturing stimulations have been conducted in a number of coals
using relatively large mesh sand at concentrations of up to 10 Ib per gallon. There is a trade-off,
however, between the polymer damage to the coal formation and the productivity increase generated by a long propped fracture.
3. Water fracture treatments. Because of polymer damage to the formation, water has replaced
polymer gels as the predominant fracture fluid in many cases. Large mesh sand can still be
used, but the concentration of sand is limited to a few pounds per gallon. In some coal gas wells,
gas production is greater with water fracs than with higher concentration sand polymer fracs.
4. Sandless water fracture treatments. In a few reservoirs, pumping water at frac rates without

proppant has been successful in providing an open pathway to the wellbore. Wells completed in
this manner are generally lower rate than propped fractured wells but may be beneficial because
of lower stimulation costs in some areas.
The cavity completion. Openhole cavity completion techniques involve setting surface pipe in the
same manner as for a conventional cased hole completion, and then drilling through the coal or to a
point above the coal with air drilling fluids. In the most successful wells, the openhole section is usually 200-300 ft in height with the total depth at the base of the lowest coal seam that is deemed producable. The well is then blown down by surging full formation pressure to the atmosphere, allowing
water, gas and coal to flow up the pipe and to the surface. The time for the blowdown will depend on
the formation and area, but is typically about 15 min in cycles. Sometimes compressed air, and even
water, is injected into the reservoir before blowdown to encourage breakup or sloughing of the coal
into the wellbore. Cleanouts are usually necessary with a bit on tubing to circulate coal fines from the
wellbore. The process may be repeated up to 50 times over an 8-10 day period until the cavity stabilizes and the wellbore remains free of debris after a blowdown cycle. The cavity completion is not useful in every case. The usual attitude is that if a cavity can be created, then it will make the best
completion. But if it cannot be created, the well probably needs to be fractured.
Design of fracturing treatments for coal wells must take into account probable damage to the coal by
polymers, the amount of fracture length needed for commercial operation, and the leakoff involved
during the fracturing attempt. The same natural fracture system which is required for coalbed methane
production can also be the source of severe leakoff when the higher pressures of a fracturing treatment open the natural fractures of the coal to leakoff potential. This problem is further complicated
since fluid loss control may produce severe formation damage. Coal fracturing is an accepted part and
has been successful in many parts of the world.

8-34

The design of surface production facilities for coal wells must take into account the anticipated flow,
the likely production of coal fines, early production of large amounts of water, and disposal of the
water. The typical coalbed methane surface facility consists of production well, gathering lines, separators, compressors, dehydrators, flow measurement systems, and water-treating and disposal facilities.

Multiple Completions
In some wells, the presence of two or more pay zones may require separate handling because of
widely different zone pressures or incompatibilities of fluids. In shallow zones, a separate well may be
drilled and completed in each pay zone. In deeper plays, or in areas where drilling time or surface
space is limited, the pays may be completed individually from the same well by using a multiple completion.
55-62

Multiple completions are made for the following reasons:

1. Vastly different zone pressures.

2. Widely separated zones.

3. Fluid incompatibilities.

4. Multiple well replacement.

5. Different mineral royalty owners of different zones.

6. Legal requirements.
Multiples completions are often described as a nuisance because of the increased mechanical problems with the equipment. These problems result from running two or more strings of pipe and setting
two or more packers. The equipment for multiple completions is often very specialized and the completion may be tailored for each well.
Multiple completions may be either the conventional side-by-side tubing completions involving the
equipment shown in Figure 8.33 or a concentric tubing completion as shown in Figure 8.34. The conventional dual is the more common of the two approaches, although the concentric duals allow higher
flow rates in some applications. The concentric completions require special running techniques to
make and break joints. The two strings in a conventional dual are the long string (deep zone) and the
short string (shallow zone).
The packers involved in the multiple completions are frequently customized to the requirements of the
individual well. The packers (Figure 8.35)are usually hydraulic set. Because of the difficulty in rotating
side-by-side dual strings, the pressure set packers are the most popular. Mechanical set packers that
do not require rotation are also used, especially as the top packer in the multiple packer series. Packers in multiple completions may be either permanent or retrievable. In high pressure or sour gas operations, the selection of a permanent packer is favored while in shallower or lower pressure
completions the retrievables are often used.
Sub surface safety valves may still be run and common flow control lines are common, Figure 8.36.
The larger od of the SSSVs make tool offsets necessary.

8-35

Figure 8.33: Conventional dual completion

using side-by side tubing.
This approach requires a large
casing string and setting of
two packers. Zones can be
treated as Individual wells;
however, wireline operations
in the upper zone are usually
limited because of potential
wrap of the wireline around
the tubing string.

Figure 8.34: A concentric dual tubing

completion.

Tubingless Completions

8-36

SEALS
CONE
SLIPS

Flgure8.35: Schematic drawing of a dual completion mechanical packer. Set by

compression and released by picking up the string.

(Barn-, Snider, and Swafford, SPE, 1990)

Figure8.36: SSSVs in a dual completion showing a common

control line.

A special case of multiple completions involve the use of so-called tubingless completion^.^^*^* In
these completions, the tubing is cemented in place in the open hole and acts as tubing and casing.
Tubingless completions are restricted to gas or flowing oil wells that do not require workovers on a
regular basis. Completing these wells usually requires cementing through the long strings and return
of cement to surface. Since there is only one steel barrier, backup with cement must be a part of the
design. Since both strings are cemented in place, a packer is not used. A device in the short string to
orient perforating guns away from the long string is required. Serious problems may require a well
replacement.

Equipment in multiple completions include:

8-37

1. Special BOP rams for work over^.^^

2. Y-block connections allowing ESP use and wireline

operation^.^^

3. Shear release joints or collects on the tubing between the packers for pulling off when the lower
packer
4. Telescoping unions or sliding sleeves for minor adjustments in spacing out tubing during packer

setting.
5. Blast joints or heavy wall tubing over the tubing across from high velocity productive formations
to limit outside tubing erosion.56y65
6. Oriented perforating in the short string, to miss the long strings.
7. Dual polish bore receptacles in deep wells.66
8. Special artificial lift a s ~ e m b l i e s . ~ ~

Selection of a Completion

Selection of a multiple completion is usually made after a detailed examination of the wells deliverability, legal restrictions, operational requirements and field experience. Tubing and annular sizes are
selected on the basis of acceptable pressure drops at expected flow rates. In concentric completions
for example, 2-7/8in. tubing may be used inside 5 in. tubing for dual strings in a 7 in. casing string.
The size of the inner string is selected based upon whether the upper zone or the lower zone is the
maximum producer.
Conventional multiple completions may be lifted by rods, gas lift or slim hole ESPs, while the intervals
producing through the annulus in concentric duals are limited to flowing wells that are not prone to
heading, deep hydrate formation or deep paraffin deposition. Shallow deposition of hydrates or paraffins can be controlled in some instances by hot water or hot oil circulation through a small diameter
tube down the inside or outside of the existing tubing. Multiple strings also limit the application of
wireline operations in all but the lower zone of concentric completions. Problems with wireline wrapping around the pipe preclude its use in upper intervals.
Monobores
A monobore completion is a basic, constant i.d. completion that may be well suited for gas completions. Historically, monobore completions are nothing new. Designs that meet one of the basic definitions of monobores have been seen in the literature into the 1960s and a few articles on multiple
completion strings from the 1950s spotlight use of tubingless completions (actually they are casingless) using smooth 2-7/8in. or 2-3/8in. tubing, cemented in place. These completions were economical but quickly lost favor because of the difficulty of working in these reduced ID wellbores. The
primary problem in the 1950s was lack of reliable tools and methods for circulation, repair and plugback. Although technological advances have surmounted many of the problems, the problems of
working in a small wellbore (friction, sticking, pressure control, miniature tools, etc.) still remain.

There are a number of definitions for monobore completions throughout the industry. Monobore completions have been around since the early 60s and maybe even before. The various definitions of
monobores depend on their application, and often times, on the company involved in the work. From a
search of the literature, the following definitions of monobore and associated completions are
advanced as a starting point.

8-38

True monobore - A true monobore is a well completion configuration in which the production
liner and the tubing are the same diameter. The purpose is to provide full bore access to all
parts of the well.
Decreasing bore monobore - Most monobore completions are decreasing monobore with
smaller bore liners below a larger upper liner. The problems in this type of completion are the
very small work areas and the increasing possibility of sticking strings, as wellbore diameters
decrease.
Nippleless monobore - A nippleless monobore is a monobore completion without nipple profiles
which extend into the bore of the tubing. Some designers keep a monobore in nippleless form
except for the nipple required for a wireline retrievable subsurface safety valve. Other designers
go with a tubing retrievable, subsurface safety valve to prevent even this nipple in the string.
Slimhole monobore - The slimhole monobore is a hybrid utilizing the technology both of the
monobore completion, and most generally, the reduced well size concept that uses tighter clearances in the drilling and placement of tubular products. Slimholes can denote either small wellbores or small clearances between the drilled holes and the tubular.
The primary features of a monobore completion are:
1. Production tubing/liners are usually the same diameter throughout the well, or at least, have full-

bore access to the lower most portions of the liner.

2. A true monobore has no permanent diameter restrictions that will limit fullbore access to any

point of the well.

3. The tubular design in all monobores is extremely dependent upon the flowrate both of gas and of
liquids expected from the well.
The monobore design, while excellent at maximizing rate particularly from gas and gas condensate
wells, does create a few problems most notably with isolation necessary for intervention and some
stimulations.
Many well workover problems are caused by sticking a tool during workovers, stimulation or gathering
data. The list of cased hole sticking locations is interesting:
differential sticking at perforations (especially in depleted zones where kill fluid weight caused significant overbalance,
liner tops where damage, cement residue or other debris collected and caused problems,
profiles, especially where wireline or tubing conveyed tools became stuck due to close clearances or
to deposits (paraffins, asphaltenes, scales) in the profiles,
end of tubing where lack of a tool reentry guide or where misshapen tools (perforating guns) stuck,
crossover from one size of tubing to another in a tapered string.
The nippleless true monobore eliminates or minimizes many of these problems. Monobores using
more conventional tubular sizes (4-1/2 in., 5-1/2in. and 7 in.) also can use conventional, proven
downhole tools with which service people have more experience.

8-39

Coiled Tubing Completions

Coiled tubing (CT) completions are very similar to conventional completions but offer the advantages
of:
1. more rapid deployment; often completed in a few hours,

2. less need for a conventional rig a major asset in offshore, remote, crowded or urban well sites,

3. ability to run the entire completion string without killing the well - a major advantage for fluid sensitive wells,
4. ability to pull the entire completion, quickly, even under pressure, without a rig.
The disadvantages of the technique are ones of equipment cost and sizes; both objections are
steadily being reduced.
The best candidates for CT completions are those wells where:
1. corrosion is minimal,

2. lift requirements are within capabilities of the available equipment,

3. where conventional rig cost is high,

4. where pay zones are sensitive to killing fluids,
5. where stimulations (fracturing) have already been done,
6. solidslsand production to surface is absent.

The candidate list is neither complete, nor exclusive. Special conditions such as pressure, tubing
movement, stimulation needs and even gravel packing can be handled with the right design.
The CT completion string is spooled into the well, Figure 8.34, using mostly conventional CT equipment.
The spooling may be stopped to weld in components or bolt on external gas lift valves, but previously
welded equipment, already spooled reduces running time and the shop welding may improve the reliability of connections. When equipment must be added in the field, a window or entrance point is
included in the surface rig up between the injector and the BOPs.
When seal assemblies, Figure 8.35, are run, it is often advantageous to straighten the bottom 10 ft of
the coil tubing to assist in stabbing the seal assembly.
Lift for the CT completion may be by gas lift (internal or external valves), plunger jet pump or electric
submersible pump (ESP).The plunger lift has been the most common system but the other lift systems have found successful applications. For horizontal or highly deviated wells; gas lift, jet pumps
and ESPs have the most promise.
Corrosion in CT completions is an unknown. corrosion by CO2 over several years has been noted but
reports on other forms of corrosion are not common. The mild steel of most CT strings is both an
advantage (resists cracking) and a disadvantage (low initial strength) in some cases. More corrosion
resistant alloys are being developed, but cost will undoubtably be a factor in its use.

8-40

WIDE ARCH
INJECTOR HEAD
PACK-OFF
LUBRICATOR
COILED TUBINQ HANQER
TUBINQ HANQER

8 A m Y VALVE
WITH FLAPPER OPEN

(Camco, 1996)

Figure 8.34: A typical coiled tubing completion (safety valve for offshore).

One potentially sever limitation in an offshore CT completion string is powering the SSSV. The current
methods of routing hydraulic fluid to a SSSV in a CT string are internal and external lines. The internal
lines can be delivered to the site already in the CT, while the external lines must be attached in the
field and run in carefully. There are difficulties in bringing either line through the well head and special
connections are required, Figure 8.36. Designs are underway to use the existing SSSV profile (where
the existing large tubing is left in the well) and spacing out the CT to the profile.

References
1. Laing, C. M., Ogier, M. J., Hennington, E. R.: Everest and Lomond Completion Design Innovations Lower Completion and Workover Costs, SPE 26743, Offshore European Conf., Amsterdam, Sept. 7-10, 1993.
2. Hennington, E. R., Smith, lan, MacDougall, I. D., Fordyce, R. S.: Logging and Perforating Operations Utilizing Coild Tubing in a 25,000 ft MD, High-Angle Well, SPE 27602, European Prod.
Oper. Conf., Aberdeen, March 15-17,1994.

3. Ross, B. R., Faure, A. M., Kitsios, E. E., Oosterling, P.,Zettle, R. S.: Innovative Slim-Hole Completions, SPE 24981, European Pet. Conf, Cannes, Nov. 16-18, 1992.
4. Robison, C. E.: Monobore Completions for Slimhole Wells, SPE 27601, European Prod. Oper.
Conf., Aberdeen, March 15-17, 1994.

8-41

LUBRICATOR

LOCATOR SEAL AS825yBLY

Wrm PUMP OUT PLUQ

LOCK WITH PBR Am FLAPPER

(Carnco, 1996)

Figure 8.35: Runnint seal assembly on coiled tubing.

5. Tollefsen, S., Grane, E., Svinndal, S.: Gullfaks Development Provides Challenges, World Oil,
May, 1994, p 77-82.

6. Gee, N., Brown, S., Mcltardy, C.: The Development and Application of a Slickline Retrievable
Bridge Plug, SPE 26742, Offshore European Conf., Aberdeen, Sept. 7-10, 1993.
7. Vinzent, M., Smith, R.: New Subsurface Safety Valve Designs for Slimhole/Monobore Completions, OTC 7885, 1995 Offshore Tech Conf., May, 1995.

References
1. Wilkirson, J. P., Smith, J. H., Stagg, T. O., Walters, D. A.: Horizontal Drilling Techniques at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, SPE 15372, 61st Annual Mtg., New Orleans, October 5-8, 1986.
2. Bosio, J. C.: Horizontal Wells Prove Their Worth, Pet. Eng. Int. (February 1988), pp. 18-19.

3. Baldwin, D. D., Royal, R. W., Gill, H. S.: Drilling High Angle Directional Wells,
4. Hardrnan, P.: Beckingham 36 Horizontal Well, SPE 15895, SPE European Petroleum Conference, London, October 20-22, 1986.

8-42

COwlliOL U#
C O W TUBHQ

(Camco, 1996)

Figure 8.36: The SSSV control line connection at surface.

5. Jourdan, A. P., Baron, G.: Elf Drills 1OOO+ ft Horizontally, Pet. Eng. Int. (September 1981),
pp. 51-52, 56, 58.
6. Prevedel, B.: New Techniques in Horizontal and Drainhole Drilling Optimization: Lehrte 41 Lateral Drilling Project, SPE 15694, Fifth SPE Middle East Oil Show, Manama, Bahrain, March 710, 1987.

7. Moore, S. D.: High Angle Drilling Comes of Age, Pet. Eng. Int. (February 1987), pp. 18-20, 22.
8. Dussert, P., Santoro, G., Soudet, H.: A Decade of Drilling Pays Off In Offshore Italian Oil Field,
Oil and Gas J., Feb. 29, 1988, p. 33, 34,36; 37, 39.
9. Moore, S. D., ed.: Making New Production Technology Work for You, Pet. Eng. Int., Jan. 1988,
pp. 20-21.
10. Markle, R. D.: Drilling Considerations in Designing a Shallow Horizontal Well at Norman Wells,
N.W.T., Canada SPE/IADC 16148, SPEIIADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, March 15-18,
1987.
11. Bezaire, G. E.,Markin, I. A.: Esso Resources Horizontal Hole Project at Cold lake, CIM Paper
79-30-10, Banff, May 8-11, 1979.
12.

, Getting to the Bottom with Slant-Hole Logging Tools, Pet. Eng. Int. (February 1988),
pp. 32-34.

13. de Montigny, O., Combe, J.: Horizontal Well Operations, pt. 3, Hole Benefits, Reservoir Types
Key to Profit, Oil & Gas J. (April 11, 1988), pp. 50-54, 56.

8-43

14. Fuh, G. F., Whitfill, D. L., Schuh, P. R.: Use of Borehole Stability Analysis for Successful Drilling
of High-Angle Hole, IADC/SPE 17235, presented at IADC/SPE Conference, Feb. 28-March 2,
1988.
15. Bradley, W. B.: Failure of Inclined Boreholes, J. of Energy Resources Tech., Trans. of ASME.,
1979, pp. 232-239.
16. Adams, N.: How to Control Differential Pipe Sticking, Pet. Eng. Int. (Sept. 1977).
17. Wilson, M. A., Sabins, F. L.: A Laboratory Investigation of Cementing Horizontal Wells, SPE
16928, 62nd Annual Mtg., Dallas, September 27-30, 1987.
18. Hudson, T. D., Martin, J. W.: Use of Low-Density, Gravel Pack Material Improves Placement
Efficiency, SPE 17169, Formation Damage Symp., Bakerfield, Feb. 8-9, 1988.
19. Shryock, S.G.: Gravel-Packing Studies in a Full-scale Deviated Model Wellbore, J. Pet.
Tech., March 1983, pp. 603-609.
20. Elson, T. D., Darlington, R. H., Mantooth, M. A.: High-Angle Gravel-Pack Completion Studies,
J. Pet. Tech., Jan. 1984, pp. 69-78.
21. Toney, J. B.: New Perforator Enhances Gravel-Pack Completions, World Oil, Dec. 1986,
pp. 40-44.
22. Strubhar, M. K., Fitch, J. L., Glenn, E. E., Jr.: Multiple Vertical Fractures From an Inclined Wellbore - A Field Experiment, JPT (May 1975), pp. 641-647.
23. Houghton, C. J., Westermark, R. V.: North Sea Downhole Corrosion: Identifying the Problem;
Implementing the Solutions, J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1983), pp. 239-246.
24. Giger, F. M.: Analytic 2-D Models of Water Cresting Before Breakthrough for Horizontal Wells,
SPE 15378, 61st Annu. Mtg., New Orleans, Oct. 5-8, 1986.
25. Giger, F. M.:Horizontal Well ProductionTechniques in Heterogeneous Reservoirs, SPE 13710,
Mid East Oil Conf., Bahrain, March 11-1 4, 1985.
26. Joshi, S. D.: Augmentation of Well Productivity Using Slant and Horizontal Wells, SPE 15375,
61st Annual Mtg., New Orleans, October 5-8, 1986.
27. Joshi, S.D.: A Review of Horizontal and Drainhole Technology, SPE 16868, presented at 62nd
Annual Tech. Mtg., Dallas, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
28. Sherrard, D. W., Brice, B. W., MacDonald, D. G.: Application of Horizontal Wells at Prudhoe
Bay, SPE 15376, 61st Annual Mtg., October 5-8, 1986, New Orleans.
29. Cinco, H., Miller, F. G., Ramey, H. J., Jr.: Unsteady-state Pressure Distribution Created by a
Directionally Drilled Well, J. Pet. Tech., (Nov. 1975), 1392-1402.
30. Matthews, C. S.: Steamflooding, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (March 1983) 465-471.
31. Konopnicki, D. T.; Traverse, E. F.; Brown A. and Deibert, A. D.: Design and Evaluation of the
Shiells Canyon Field Steam-Distillation Drive Pilot Project, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
(May 1979) 546-552.

8-44

32. Moss, J. T., White, P. D., McNeil, J. S.: in-Situ Combustion Process-Results of a Five Well
Experiment in Southern Oklahoma, J. Pet. Tech., (April 1959) pp. 55-64.
33. Gates, C. F., Ramsey, H. J., Jr.: Field Results of South Belridge Thermal Recovery Experiment,
Trans., AIME, (1958), 213, 236-44.
34. White, P. D.: In-Situ Combustion Appraisal and Status, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
(November 1985) 1943-1949.
35. Chu, Chieh: Current In-Situ Combustion Technology, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
(August, 1983) 1412-1418.
36. Lerner, S.L.; Fleming, G. C. and Lara, P. F.: Dominant Processes in In-Situ Combustion of
Light-Oil Reservoirs, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (May 1985) 889-900.
37. Schirmer, R. N. and Eson, R. L.: A Direct-Fired Downhole Steam Generator-From Design to
Field Test, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (October 1985) 1903-1908.
38. DePriester, C. L. and Pantaleo, A. J.: Well Stimulation by Downhole Gas-Air Burner, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, (December 1963) 1297-1302.
39. Singhal, A. K. and Card, C. C.: Monitoring of Steam Stimulation in the McMurray Formation,
Athabasca Deposit, Alberta, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (April 1988) 483-490.
40. Briggs, P. J.; Baron, R. P.; Fulleylove, R. J. and Wright, M. S.: Development of Heavy-Oil Reservoirs, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (February 1988) 206-214.
41. Underdown, D. R. and Das, K.: Stability of Gravel-Packing Materials for Thermal Wells, Journal
of Petroleum Technology, (November 1985) 2006-2012.
42. Reed, M. G.: Gravel Pack and Formation Sandstone Dissolution During Steam Injection, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (June 1980) 941-949.
43. Carden, R. S.,Nicholson, R. W., Pettitt, R. A. and Rowley, J. C.: Unique Aspects of Drilling and
Completing Hot, Dry Rock Geothermal Wells, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (May 1985)
821-834.
44. Davis, J. S.,Fanaritis, J. P.: Insulated Tubing Can Cut Wellbore Heat Losses, Oil & Gas J.
(Mar. 1, 1982) 86, 91-96.
45. Pacheo, E. F., Farouq Ali, S.M.: Wellbore Heat Losses and Pressure Drop in Steam Injection,
J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1972), pp. 139-144.
46. Giusti, L. E.:CVS Makes Steam Soak Work in Venezuela Field, Oil & Gas J. (Nov. 4, 1974), 8993.
47. Willhite, G. P., Dietrich, W. K.: Design Criteria for Completion of Steam Injection Wells, J. Pet.
Tech. (Jan. 1967), 15-21
48. Earlougher, R. C.: Some Practical Considerations in the Design of Steam Injection Wells, J.
Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1969) 79-86.
49. Cain, J. E., Shryock, S.H., Carter, G.: Cementing Steam Injection Wells in California, JPT,
(April, 1966), pp. 431-436.

8-45

50. Holliday, G.H.: Calculation of Allowable Maximum Casing Temperature to Prevent Tension Failures in Thermal Wells, ASME Petroleum Mechanical Engineering Conference, Tulsa, Sept. 21
25, 1969.

51. Willhite, G. P., Dietrich, W. K.: Design Criteria for Completion of Steam Injection Wells, J.P.T.,
(Jan., 1967)pp. 15-21.
52. Bleakley, W. B.: Steamed Wells Need Good Completions, O.&G.J., (April 4,1966),pp. 136138.
53. Gates, C. F., Holmes, B. G.: Thermal Well Completions and Operations, Seventh World Petroleum Congress, Paper PD-1l, Mexico City, (1967).
54. Eilers, L. H.: High-Temperature Cement Compositions-- Pectolite, Scawtite, Truscottite, or
Xonotlite: Which do you want, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (July 1983)1373-1377.
55. Milligan, M. R.: Sour Gas Well Completion Practices in the Foothills, Western Canada, J. Pet.
Tech. (Sept. 1982),p. 2113.
56. Buzard, L. E., Jr., Kastor, R. L., Bell, W. T., DePriester, C. L.: Production Operations Course 1 Well Completions, SPE Video Tape Cours Course Notes, 1972.

57. Badon, H. B., Nellis, W. E.: Multiple Packer Completions in the Attaka Field, SPE 5975.
,: Humble Runs 3 Strings of 4-1/2-lnch Pipe in One Hole, World Oil, (March 1966),

58.
p. 57.

59. Enloe, J. R.: Amerada Finds Using Multiple Casing Strings Can Cut Costs, Oil and Gas J.,
(June 12,1967),p. 76.
60. Othman, M. E.: Review of Dual Completion Practice for Upper Zakum Field, SPE 15756,Mid
East Oil Show, Manama, Bahrain, March 7-10, 1987.
61. Singh, I.: Study Shows Dual Completion Aids Productivity, Controls Water Coning, Oil and Gas
J., (July 7,1975),p. 45.
62. Lewis, K. W.: Use of Vent Strings in Artificially Lifted Wells, SWPSC, Lubbock.
63. Nance, J. G.: Dual Suspension and Sealing Rams for Use in a Blowout Preventer, OTC 5578,
Houston, April 27-30,1987.
64. Moradi, S.C.: An Innovative Single Completion Design with Y-Block and Electrical Submersible Pump for Multiple Reservoir, OSEA 88163,Offshore Southeast Asia Conf., Singapore, 2-5
Feb 1988.
65. Webster, K. R.,OBrien, T. B.: Deep Duals Simplified, SPE 3904,SPE Deep Drilling Symposium, Amarillo, Sept. 1 1 -1 2,1972.
66. Moring, J. D.: How Skelly Handles Deep Duals at Warwink, Pet. Eng. Intl., (Dec 1974),p. 66.
67. Lambie, D. A., Walton, R.: Gas Lift in Multiple Completed Wells, SWPSC, Lubbock, pp. 101.
68. Yew, C. H., Li, Y.: Fracturing of a Deviated Well, SPE 16930,62nd Annual Mtg., Dallas,
September 27-30,1987.

8-46

69. Daneshy, A. A., A Study of Inclined Hydraulic Fractures, J. Pet. Tech., 1973, pp. 61-68.
70. Hsiao, C.: A Study of Horizontal Wellbore Failure, SPE 16927, 62th Annual Mtg., Dallas,
September 27-30, 1987.
71. Terzaghi, K. van: Die Berechnung der Durchlassigkeitsziffer des Tones aus dem Verlauf der
Hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheinungern, Sber Akad, Wiss, Wien, (1923), 132, 105.
72. Roegiers, J. C.: Elements of Rock Mechanics, from the book Reservoir Stimulation, Economides, M. J., and Nolte K. G., Schlumberger, 1987.
73. Parcevaux, P.: Guides Emerge for Cementing Horizontal Strings, O.G.J., Oct. 19, 1987, pp. 3541.
74. Gavignet, A. A., Sobey, I. J.: A Model for the Transport of Cuttings in Highly Deviated Wells,
SPE 15417, 61st Annual Mtg., New Orleans, October 5-8, 1986.
75. Martin, M., Georges, C., Bisson, P., Konirsch, 0.: Transport of Cuttings in Directional Wells,
SPEAADC 16083, 1987 SPEAADC Mtg., New Orleans, March 15-18.
76. Reiley, R. H., Black, J. W., Stagg, T. O., Walters, D. A., Atol, G. R.: Cementing of Liners in Horizontal and High-Angle Wells at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, SPE 16682, 62nd Annual Mtg., Dallas,
Sept. 27-30, 1987.
77. Crook, R. J., Keller, S.R., Wilson, M. A.: Solutions to Problems Associated with Deviated Wellbore Cementing, SPE 14198, 60th Annual Mtg., Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25, 1985.
78. Zurdo, C., Georges, C.: Mud and Cement for Horizontal Wells, SPE 15464, 61st Annual Mtg.,
New Orleans, October 5-8, 1986.
79. Kolthoff, K. W., Scales, G. H.: Improved Liner Cementing Techniques for Alaskas Prudhoe Bay
Field, SPE 10756, Calif. Reg. Mtg., March 1982.
80. Dickinson, W., Anderson, R. R., Dickenson, W.: Gravel Packing of Horizontal Wells, SPE
16931, 62nd Annual Mtg., Dallas, September 27-30, 1987.
81. Addington, D. V.: An Approach to Gas Coning Correlations for the Prudhoe Bay Field, SPE
8332, 54th Annual Mtg., Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26, 1979.
82. Giger, F. M.: Low Permeability Reservoirs Development Using Horizontal Wells, SPE 16406,
Low Perm Reservoir Symposium, Denver, May 18-19, 1987. 067. Van Der Vlis, A. C., Duns, H.,
Luque, R. F.: Increasing Well Productivity in Tight Chalk Reservoirs, Proceedings of the
Tenth World Petroleum Congress. Vol. 3, Bucharest, Hungary (1979) 71-78.
83. Jourdan, A. P., Baron, G.: Horizontal Well Proves Productivity Advantages, Pet. Eng. Int.
(October 1984), pp. 23-25.
84. Stramp, R. L.: The Use of Horizontal Drainholes in the Empire Abo Unit, SPE 9221, 55th
Annual Mtg., Dallas, September 21-24, 1980.
85. Reiss, L. H.: Horizontal Wells - Production after Five Years, SPE 14338, 60th Annual Mtg., Las
Vegas, September 22-25, 1985.

8-47

86. Ertekin, T., Sung, W., Schwerer, F. C.: Production Performance Analysis of Horizontal Drainage
Wells for the Degasification of Coal Seams, JPT (May 1988),pp. 625-632.
87. Pratts, M.: Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Permeability - Incompressible Fluid Case,
SPEJ, (June 196l),105-118.
88. Aadnoy, B. S.:Modelling of the Stability of Highly Inclined Boreholes in Anisotropic Rock Formations, SPE 16526,presented at Offshore Europe 87,Aberdeen, Sept. 1987.
89. Giger, F. M., Reiss, L. H., Jourdan, A. P.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Horizontal Drilling, SPE 13024,59th Annual Mtg., Houston, September 16-19,1984.
90. Muskat, M.: The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through a Porous Media, IHRDC, Boston
(1937).
91. Law, B. E., Rice, D. D.: Hydrocarbons from Coal, AAPG Studies in Geology #38,1993,
Chapter 15,by R. A. Schraufnagel.
92. Law, B. E., Rice, D. D.: Hydrocarbons from Coal, AAPG Studies in Geology #38,1993,
Chapter 12,by T. L. Logan.
93. Law, B. E., Rice, D. D.: Hydrocarbons from Coal, AAPG Studies in Geology #38,1993,
Chapter 9,by D. Yee, J. P. Seidle, W. B. Hanson.
94. Law, B. E., Rice, D. D.: Hydrocarbons from Coal, AAPG Studies in Geology #38,1993,
Chapter 5, by J. C. Close.

95. Law, B. E.,Rice, D. D.:Hydrocarbons from Coal, AAPG Studies in Geology #38,1993,
Chapter 13,by P. L. Scholes and D. Johnston.
96. Law, B. E., Rice, D. D.: Hydrocarbons from Coal, AAPG Studies in Geology #38,1993,
Chapter 14,by I. D. Palmer, S.W. Lambert, J. L. Spitler.
97. Boyer, C. M., Reeves, S.R.: A Strategy for Coalbed Methane Production Development Part Ill:
Production Operations, 1989 Coalbed Methane Symposium, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

98. Holditch, S.A.: Completion Methods in Coal Seam Reservoirs, SPE 20670,65th Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 23-26,1990.
99. Palmer, I. D., Mavor, M. J., Spitler, J. L., Seidle, J. P., Volz, R. F.: Openhole Cavity COmpletions
in Coalbed Methane Wells in the San Juan Basin, JPT, Nov. 1993,p. 1072-1080.
100. Seidle, J. P.: Long-Term Gas Deliverablility of a Dewatered Coalbed, JPT, June 1993,

p. 564-569.

101. Palmer, I. D.: Review of Coalbed Methane Well Stimulation, SPE 22395,International Mtg.,
Beijing, China, March 24-27,1992.
102. Themig, D.: Planning and Evaluation are Critical to Multi-lateral Wells, Pet. Eng. Int., Jan. 1996.
103. Rowan, M. C., Whims, M. J.: Multi-lateral Well Enhances Gas Storage Deliverability, 0. & G. J.,
Dec. 25,1995.

8-48

104. Brockman, M.: Multi-lateral Completions Prepare to Take Off, Pet. Eng. Int., Jan. 1996.
105. Hall, S. D.: Multi-lateral Horizontal Wells Optimize a Utah Five-Spot Waterflood, Pet. Eng. Int.,
May 1996.

106. Comeau, L., Pustany K. R., Smith, R., Giles, I.: Lateral Tie-Back System Increases Reservoir
Exposure, World Oil, July 1995.

8-49

Appendix 8.A Special Horizontal Well Operations

Logging
Running wireline conveyed tools in a deviated well on tubing or drill pipe requires a special coupling
known as a side entry sub. In wells past about 55 degrees, gravity will often not overcome the effects
of friction of the tool on the side of the hole and the logging tools will not slide into the deviated sections. In these cases, the tools have to be pushed by tubing into the deviated sections of the well.
Once the tools are at the end of the section to be loaded, they can be retrieved by wireline to make a
smooth log at a constant pulling speed. To keep the pipe out of the way during retrieval of the tools,
the side entry sub is needed. Since a wireline connection is still needed for tool readout, a way is
needed to have a wireline connection through the tubing while allowing the tools to be pulled along
continuously by wireline rather than by the jerky motions required by breaking out pipe connections
when removing tubing. To allow this wireline movement, the wireline logging cable runs down the
annulus from the top of the well between the tubing and the casing for several joints of pipe. At tile
side entry sub, the cable enters the inside of the pipe and runs to the tools at the bottom of the string.
The pipe provides the force necessary to push the tools along the deviated section while running in. At
the furthest point to be logged, the tools are pumped out of the tubing and the tubing is withdrawn to a
point where the side entry sub is near the surface. The wireline pulled tools can then be retrieved
while logging until the tools are pulled into the tubing. Another logging procedure when using a side
entry sub, is to run to bottom with the tool on tubing and log up by pulling tubing until the side entry
sub returns to the surface. The cable is then unlatched from the side entry sub and removed permitting the rest of the drill pipe and logging tools to be tripped out of the well.
There are two options for protecting the logging tools from the weight of the drilling string or tubing
string during running-in the well. In the first option, a compression sub with a certain amount of stroke
can be placed at the bottom of the tool string and a compression sensor placed above the logging tool.
Standard logging tools may be used without a protective sleeve surrounding the tool. When the wireline is connected and the logging tools are powered, any downhole tool compression is indicated at
the surface. This information may be tied to an alarm system to alert the driller when the bottom of the
hole is reached. The driller then has a reaction time of the distance of the compression sub to stop the
string before the entire weight of the string is on the tools. Pad-type tools, which ride the low side of
the pipe, can be used with a swivel in the tool string to decouple the drill pipe torque from the tool
string. The second option for protecting logging tools involves the use of a protective sleeve that
increases the compressional strength of a tool string. The sleeve is usually constructed from nonconductive fiberglass or metal casing with windows cut out around pad type devices. In this case, tool orientation must be measured and drill pipe rotated to make sure that the pad tools ride the low side of
the pipe.

Stress in an Deviated Well

With the application of three dimensional elastic theory, Yew and Li68analyzed the deviated well and
derived a set of formulas for stress components around the hole. They found that when fractures are
initiated at the deviated wellbore, they would leave the plane of the wellbore and align with the plane
of a fracture preferred by the stresses in the formation. This is consistent with the findings of
Dane~hy.~'
Assuming that the rock medium has a tensile failure stress 2, fracturing will initiate at the inner surface
of the wellbore when the maximum tensile stress at the rock surface reaches this value. Yew and Li
present their information in a coordinate system and a coordinate transformation and solve for
stresses. The stress components around the wellbore with r = R,are:
CJ~,=

- 20,sin

8 + 20,cos8

where:

8.A-50

= principle stress on the surface of the wellbore

8
= position of the initial fracture
x,y,z = Cartesian coordinate values
oxzand ay = in situ stress

oqz

and the maximum tensile stress has a form:

Hsiao also predicted fracture initiation through work on the stresses necessary for failure in a horizontal well. Borehole tensile failure through fracturing was predicted to occur if one of the principie
normal stresses induced on the borehole wall exceeded the tensile strength of the formation. The
stresses are increased by increasing the pressure. When the maximum tensile stress reaches the tensile strength of the formation, fracturing will occur. Fracturing may be beneficial in the form of a stimulation or very detrimental in the form of lost circulation from drilling or workover operations.
For a full understanding of wellbore stability, several stresses in the formation must be known. These
include: (1) the stress in the formation before drilling the hole (in situ stress), (2) the additional load
upon the formation caused by the hole, (3) how the overburdened load on the rock is affected by mud
pressure, (4) the strength of the rock, and (5)how the mud chemically affects the strength of the rock.
Obviously, in most formations, many of the data needed will only be estimations.
Formations are classed in terms of in situ stresses as being either normally stressed or tectonically
stressed. In the normally stressed region, the maximum in situ stress, 03,is vertical and is equal to the
overburden stress. Also, the other two principal in situ stresses, o1 and 02,which are located in the
horizontal plane are nearly equal. For well compacted and cemented formations, the overburden
stress varies linearly with depth. The value routinely reported for this gradient is approximately equal
to 1 psi/ft (22.6 kPa/m) although variances are common. In almost all active oil-producing formations,
the overburden gradient will vary with depth. This assumes that the full or nearly full overburden is
supported by all layers of sediment down to the basement rock. Conditions such as grabens and faults
will alter these conditions.
Besides in situ stresses, the other additional stress that must be considered is pore pressure. The
effective stress concept proposed by
Terzaghi7 used pore pressure, p, as an opposing force to the total applied stress o to give an effective stress 6.The relationship was simplistic:
0=

0-p

and was later modified by Handin23to

where a,the poroelastic constant, varies between 0 and 1, describing the conditions of no pore pressure support (very strong cementation) to total pore pressure exerted (very weak cementation),
respectively. The poroelastic constant is related to the Poissons ratio, v, before initial production
(undrained), and the Skempton pore-pressure ~ o e f f i c i e n t : ~ ~

8.A-51

a=

3 (y+J)
S(1-2u) (1 +v,)

Typically, for petroleum reservoirs, a is about 0.7.

Well Completion Problems

Increased problems with placement of cement and solids removal after drilling operations can be
solved in most formations by very careful application of currently available technology, but areas for
improvement definitely exist. Removal of solids, cuttings, and mud prior to the cement job are critical
to obtaining a good primary cementing operation.
P a r c e v a ~ xdivides
~ ~ the cementing decisions into two categories. Properly located drain holes that
extend through only one pay do not need to be cemented. It may be completed open hole or a liner
may be used if hole stability is a problem. If hole collapse is a problem, heavier casing should be
used. Extended reach holes that may pass through several formations need to have zone isolation for
proper production control. These wells usually involve two strings, both of which may need to be
cemented. The first string, an intermediate string, is usually deviated up to 80".The second string,
probably a long liner, is deviated 50" to 90".The intermediate casing string should pass through the
zones that must be isolated.
Centralizing the casing in the well is critical to the success of the cementing operation. Mud and cuttings are easier to remove in well centralized (> 67% API standoff) casing and almost impossible in
poorly centralized casing (c30% API standoff). Casing centralization is very difficult when the deviation angle is high, because of the increased load on the centralizers. Casing centralization becomes
more difficult when a high density cement slurry is in the pipe and a lighter mud is in the annulus. Casing standoff will be increased by reducing the density differential between the cement and the mud.
The number of centralizers will increase with the increasing angle of deviation. Wells over 50" will
require closer spacing and probably will require full body centralizers.
The cementing successes in detailed in the literature at the present time deal with using large diameter drillpipe and high velocity flow of drilling mud up the annulus. The flow rate required is the minimum velocity necessary to carry the cuttings at the particular deviation and mud condition present in
the well.
Prior to the casing job, the deviated holes may contain more cuttings and solids than in a conventional
The reason is the existence of three separate inclination regions with different levels of hole
cleaning requirements: 0-45", 45"-55",and 55"-90".Region 1 (0"-45") is conventional and is handled
in the normal fashion with cutting removal dictated by standard lift equations for vertical wells.
Region 2 (45'455") presents a different cleaning problem since cuttings will accumulate on the low
side of the hole and may slide down the wellbore into the start of the high angle section of the well.
Cleaning in this region is best accomplished by higher viscosity fluids and turbulence of the lifting
there is less tendency for the cuttings to slide, especially near horizontal,
fluid. In region 3 (55"-90),
although accumulation of cuttings may be severe. Although several studies have shown the benefits
of hole sweep using various rates and gelled fluid stages, field practice has indicated that hole cleaning of horizontal wells is very difficult. The most successful method known at this time is reverse circulation.
Successful use of all the benefits of the horizontal hole hinge on obtaining successful zone isolation
through a good primary cement job. Simultaneous reciprocation and rotation of the pipe, (using a
rotating head and other special equipment) plus pipe centralization, flushes and critical flow rates are
necessary. Some companies have used cement filled formation packers in the horizontal section to
approach centralization and zone isolation problems, Figure 8.35.28976This practice allows the sepa-

8.A-52

ration of areas of the formation for multiple fracturing jobs, although it is not a perfect solution since
problems have been reported with leakage around the packers.
Successful primary cementing in wells over about 50" becomes increasingly sophisticated, requiring
pipe movement, close centralizer spacing and techniques of improving mud d i s p l a ~ e m e n t . ~ ~ , ~ ~ - ~ ~
Liner movement was found by Reiley, et al., to be a critical part of a successful cementing job. Polymer plugs have also been used in the open hole sections to control pressure and flow during cementing.
The removal of cuttings and cleaning of the hole is critical before and during the cementing operation.
This cleaning is made much more difficult in deviated holes by the natural tendency of the pipe to bury
into the wall.
Centralizer spacing in these wells will depend on the competency of formation, the weight of the pipe,
the angle of deviation, type of fluid and other factors.34i4

Productivity Estimates
Estimates of productivity of a nonfractured, deviated well in comparison to a nonfractured vertical well
range from less than one-fold to over eight-fold, depending upon angle of deviation through the pay,
well spacing, the thickness of the formation, vertical permeability, presence of vertical permeability
barriers, and the extension of the horizontal segment of the well into the formation.80~18*81~26
The
severity of the impact of vertical permeability on the productivity of a horizontal well is presented
graphically in Figure 8.36. As vertical permeability decreases below about 50% of the horizontal permeability, the advantage of the horizontal well begins to drop noticeably. In very thick sections, the
advantage also decreases. For increasing extension, vertical permeability, and spacing, the productivity benefits increase, while increasing pay thickness limits the effectiveness of the horizontal completion, especially for low ratios of vertical to horizontal permeability. Laminated zones or other vertical
permeability barriers limit the usefulness of the horizontal completion because they change the drainage pattern of the well. Special cases for low permeability wells are being promoted8* but the process
is untried. The horizontal well may ultimately be tested as a base for hydraulic fracture processing of a
tight well.
Actual production comparisons between horizontal wells and unstimulated vertical wells are on the
range of 1-1/2 to 3, although several authors maintain that as horizontal well completion technology
improves, this comparison may rise into the six- to eight-fold increase r e g i ~ n . ~Inflow
* ~ ~ perforp~
mance comparison between horizontal and vertical wells in comparable north slope wells are shown in
Figure 8.37.
Long-term evaluations (five years) of horizontal well production have been published along with
detailed observations about intersections of horizontal wellbores with high capacity natural vertical
fractures and changes in geology.85 These evaluations of long-term production from horizontal wells
have shown that the wells are very useful in improved processing (sweep) over standard vertical completions in some reservoirs with relative high vertical permeability.86
Special production cases involving fractured formations such as coals have shown that well placement relative to formation parameters, e.g., boundaries and fractures. In numerical simulations,
Ertekin, et al.,87 demonstrated that the placement of horizontal wells in thick coal seams could drastically affect water and gas rate. Also demonstrated was a need to place the borehole orthogonal (at
right angles) to the fracture system to maximize production.
The reasons for the improved productivity benefits from the horizontal hole in homogeneous formations with high vertical permeabilities are related to the reservoir drainage pattern. The horizontal well
drains an ellipse around the wellbore as opposed to the upright, short, cylindrical volume processed

8.A-53

by a vertical
The flow and pressure gradients are different from the vertical case and, in some
cases, the horizontal well may be used for changing the sweep or processing of a recovery flood or to
control gas or water coning. In cases of very thick pays, multiple horizontal completions may be used
to drain or in some cases to vertically flood the reservoir. In the case of short drain holes in a symmetrical pattern around a single vertical (unfractured) well, the productivity is estimated to be 1 to 8 times
the vertical well productivity depending on horizontal well extension and number of drain holes.27
Many factors such as reservoir barriers and channels can decrease these optimistic estimates.
The concept of effective wellbore radius introduced by PramM for deviated and fully horizontal holes
are also useful for comparison of the effects of fractures and other factors which change the natural
matrix flow resistance toward the wellbore. In his analysis, a vertical fracture extending over the full
height of a reservoir can be replaced by an imaginary circular borehole with an effective wellbore
radius large enough to give the same production rate as the fracture under the same producing conditions. When skin factor, s,from a buildup test or other analysis, is known, the effective wellbore radius,
r, is:

Van der Vlis8' modifies the concept from Pratts to give effective wellbore radius, rweff, for deviated
holes.

where:
L
= length of horizontal section
h,
= reservoir height
h
= fracture height
= vertical distance between center of fracture and center of reservoir height
g
The equation is valid for (h, - h) I2L.
The effective wellbore radius can be used to predict production and to compute the expected yield of
fractures. The production rate, Q, is related to rw,efby:

27ckh, [ P, - Pw]
'w, eff

where:
k
p
pe

= reservoir perm
= produced fluid viscosity, cp
= pressure at the external boundary

pw
re

= bottomhole flowing pressure

= external boundary radius

The equation is valid for re > ~ l , , f i The drainage area of the horizontal well is elliptical and the axis, a
and b, of the ellipse in a homogeneous media are

re

-1( a + @ m d L 2 = a2-b2
2

A comparison of actual inflow performance curves of horizontal and vertical wells was shown previously. Using this data, flow rates improvements of 2 to 3 fold are noted at the same drawdown. This is
consistent with other reports of horizontal wells showing actual productivities of 2 to 3 fold over vertical wells but much less than the 5 to 6 projected by theory. The difference in productivity between theoretical and actual may be at least partially explained by the differences in vertical and horizontal
permeabilities dictated by the bedding planes of the formation. These bedding planes, as illustrated by
Aadnoygoin Figure 8.38, offer a glimpse at the way flow restrictions in the form of bedding planes may
be oriented around a deviated well.

Productivity Index of a horizontal well from Giger in SI units, is:

For PI of a horizontal wheel, in ft, bbl, day, psi, md, cp, and base 10 logs, the formula is:

PI,

kL
0.0145-

-j

1+ 1-

For Plof a horizontal well, in M,M3, day, bar, md, cp and base 10 logs, the multiplier is 0.0233 instead
of 0.0145.
For comparison, the Productivity Index for a vertical well is:

8.A-55

PI,

2nkh

The ratio of Pld Plw valid in any consistent system of units, is

1- - +
bln(
In 1 9 m
L
L 2nrwH
h
0..

where:
k
h
L
re

= permeability of matrix
= thickness of the reservoir

r,

= radius of wellbore

= length of the horizontal section in the pay

= radius of the well's reservoir drainage area

= viscosity of the produced fluid

p
The equation, from Joshi, to predict oil production is:

Q,

where:
Q

k,
Ap
p
8,
a
L

=flow rate
= permeability to oil, darcy
= pressure differential
= produced fluid viscosity, cp
= formation volume factor, dimensionless
= half the major axis of a drainage ellipse
= horizontal section length,

8.A-56

The preceding equations treatment of permeability recognize only a single value, and thus are only
accurate when the vertical permeability and the horizontal permeability are the same. In the event of
k, less than kh, the productivity of the horizontal well decreased. In the rare case of kvgreater than k,,,
productivity is increased. By using M ~ s k a t ' saverage
~~
reservoir permeability B =
equation becomes:

8.A-57

k k , Joshi's
G-

Chapter 9: Perforating
The objective in perforating is to place open perforations at the correct depth that extend through the
casing and cement into the formation. To be effective, the perforation tunnel must be in contact with a
permeable part of the formation and not be damaged by any mechanism that would stop or impede
the transfer of fluids between the formation and the wellbore. Perforations are holes through the casing to allow entry of fluids and may be produced by any of several methods, shaped charge perforating, bullet perforating, abrasive/erosive methods, hydraulic punch and performed (deformable) ports.
The best known design considerations for perforating are perforation length, shot phase angle, perforation density, entrance hole size, and perforating flow efficiency. However, to properly design for the
optimum in perforating requires preplanning and consideration of parameters such as filtered perforating fluid, amount of underbalance, through tubing vs. casing or expendable guns, the method for conveying guns, and gun clearance.
The first perforating mechanism which saw large scale use was the bullet gun, which was first used in
1932.' With this technique, a hardened steel bullet is shot from a very short barrel and penetrates the
casing, the cement sheath, and enters into the formation. Currently, bullet perforators are used infrequently but are available in some areas for soft formations, brittle formations, or where consistently
round holes in the casing are needed. Since the perforations are made by a round bullet, the holes are
easier to seal by ball sealers than are the more irregular holes from the shaped charges, Figure 9.1.
Recent testing on break down pressures has shown that in comparable formations perforated with jets
and bullets, the bullet perforations were easier to breakdown. This may be due to the shattering effect
on some brittle formations, such as coal and some shales. A surface test with a coal target showed jet
penetration of 30 in., compared with bullet penetration of 8-1/2 in. The perforation formed in the coal
by the bullet was heavily shattered. Because of shorter penetration in high compressive strength formations, bullet perforating is often relegated to softer formations.

(Amoco)

Figure 9.1:

A sidelooking down hole TV camera photo of a

bullet perforation in 5-112" casing. The debris in
the perf are from injection of unfiltered water.

The shaped explosive charge or "jet" charge is the most commonly used perforating mechanism.
According to theory, the shaped charge produces a hole by explosive propagation of a pressure wave
front from the surface of the metal liner in the charge, through the port or scalloped wall of the gun,

and then through casing, cement, and into the formation.* The metal liner of the charge deforms under
high pressures and provides mass which makes the charge more efficient. The penetration is the
result of the mass of fluidized liner and the amount of pressure (energy) created by the charge. The
length of the perforation created is a direct function of the shaped charge design (i.e., liner shape and
size of the charge), the compressive strength of the formation, and to a lesser extent, the explosive
powder weight.
The detonation of a shaped charge is shown schematically in Figure 9.2. In Frame A, the main components of the shaped charge are shown. The detonating (primer) cord fires the shaped charge, and
as shown beginning in Frame B, the wave front progresses through the explosive charge. As this
wave front moves through the apex of the liner, the pressure generated starts to collapse the liner on
its own axis. Since this pressure is beyond the yield strength of the metal used in the liner, the metal
behaves as a fluid. By the design of the metal cone, this collapsing fluidized liner is squeezed by
peripheral pressure at the plane of the wave front. The jet stream then moves forward and behaves as
a penetrating slug.3 The pressure generated during the firing of the charge reaches a maximum of
approximately 2 to 4 million psi. The forward portion of the fluidized stream has a velocity of approximately 20,000 to 30,000 ft per sec. The stream lengthens slightly as the charge burns, with the back
of the stream traveling at a much slower velocity of about 3000 ft per sec. The rear portion of the
stream does not fully contribute to penetration development and is often blamed for enlarging the protruding burr on the entry hole. For charges which have a wrapped metal liner, rather than a powdered
metal liner, the slug or carrot formed from the wrapped liner will follow the jet and can become lodged
in the perforation or in the entrance hole. Efforts to eliminate this characteristic have centered on the
use of pressed powdered metal liners.

W W EMPONEHIS OF
WWED WRROE PERFORRTW

DETONATION TRRVELS W Y N
THE CHARGE RND STRIKES
THE RPEX OF THE COM

u a v m w tOLLwam LINER.

ROVRNCIWO

URVEFRONT FCM

THE LIMB INNER M F R C E

THE JET STREAM. THE OUTER WRDISINTEDROT S 10 FORM W T FRCE Of THE LINER FORnS A SLUO
OF TltE Z T EtRERn.
M1 CRRROT WICH F O L L W S THE JEl
STRERM

(Dresser)

Figure 9.2:

Sequence of shaped charge detonation.

The best shaped charges have design variables that include the shape and composition of the liner
case design, loading pressure, and the amount and type of explosives. The amount of explosive is
often the most visible factor used for comparison. This is very frequently erroneous: well designed
charges with slightly smaller explosive load can be the better choice. The most desirable explosive

9-2

E-6

3
m

Figure 9.4:

Scalloped and port plug hollow carrier perforating guns.

Hollow carrier guns, depending on their diameter and design, may be loaded with from 1-16 shots/ft
and have all of the commonly used phase angles. Specialty guns to find cement voids and channels
may have 24 shots/ft.
The port plugs in the reusable guns are usually threaded sealing plugs with a thin center section. The
plugs are made from an easily penetrated material such as aluminum or mild steel. The old port plugs
and debris from expended charges are removed after a run and the tool is reloaded and fitted with
new plugs before reuse.
The alignment of charges in a reusable gun is provided by the alignment washer, Figure 9.5 or a rubber pop-up cap. The alignment washer fits over the top of the charges and the alignment sleeve that
goes between the port plug and the washer. In most guns, there is a small amount of compression
load on the rubber boot on the rear of the charge when the plug and sleeve are properly fitted, which
holds the charge in place. The amount of gun diameter swell due to repeated use of port plug type
guns, may make this compression less. Longer alignment sleeves may be needed for correction to
avoid misalignment of charges. The problem with using a longer alignment sleeve or a severely worn
gun is that the standoff distance between the change and the inside of the port plug or casing wall has
now changed and the change may generate less length or hole size. Alignment washers are usually
stamped steel. Alignment sleeves may be steel, sintered aluminum, ceramic, or plastic.
Any wireline conveyed, hollow carrier gun should have a detonator system which will not allow the
charges to fire if the gun is filled or partially filled with water. If a wet gun is fired, the hollow carrier
outer shell will probably rupture and result in a fishing or milling job. Schematics of the standard explosives detonator and the fluid desensitized, resistor detonator are shown in Figure 9.6. The standard
explosive detonator (also called a blasting cap) is a mainstay of the blasting industry but is not well
suited to the petroleum industry. Several accidental discharges of perforating guns have been linked
directly to stray currents or poor electrical panel operational procedures. The resistor detonator incorporates resistors that reduce the possibility of discharge from low power electrical signals. Other types
of detonating systems that eliminate the less stable primary explosive (lead azide) are being developed.
Perforating accidents are a rarity within the petroleum industry. Historically, there are about half a
dozen incidents per year that involve accidental firing of a perforating gun on the surface (any location
above the ground level or water level on an offshore well) where people may be endangered. In most

9-4

Figure 9.5:

Alignment systems for perforating charges.

Left: alignment sleevelwasher system for port plug gun.
Middle: rubber pop-up system for port plug gun.
Right: charge case ready to mount in scallop gun carrier

\-atoa*

&
UIC
D
UIC
D
N~
IIDX,

STANDRRD EXPLOSIVES DETONRTOR

FLUID

Figure 9.6:

DESEkSITIZED. RESISTOR TYPE

Detonator schematics for a standard explosives detonator

and safety detonator. The safety cap reduces the chance of
accidental flring in water or by low voltage signals.

of these incidents, the firing occurred following a missed run (failure to fire at depth) while personnel
are working on the gun at surface. Safe explosives procedures are available and must be followed.
Through tubing hollow carriers are popular because they can be run through the production tubing and
packer and require only a service truck. Generally, the only phasing recommended for the through tub-

9-5

ing guns is 0" since clearance is critical to the small charges used in these guns. The guns should be
run through a lubricator and are limited to about 40 ft in length, less for larger, heavier guns. The
advantages of the guns are low cost, ability to perforate underbalanced, and ability to maintain positive well control. The disadvantages are limited penetration, small entry hole, and the numerous production limitation of 0" phasing.
The expendable and semiexpendable guns use several encapsulated charges held together by metal
strips or wires, or the cases may be linked together. The expendable and semiexpendable carriers can
normally use a larger charge for a given tubing or casing size than the hollow carrier guns since only
the skin of the capsule around each charge separates it from the walls of the casing. With this tool
there is also more flexibility since some bending can be achieved. When the gun is fired, however,
some or all of the linking material as well as the charge capsule remnants are left in the hole. Problems with these guns have centered around misfires from damage to the detonating cord, tubing and
surface line plugging from debris and carrier strip disintegration or severe bending after firing. Another
serious objection to the expendable link charges is the increased possibility for casing damage, particularly in poorly cemented ~ a s i n g . ~ * ~
Temperature Effect

The higher the wellbore temperature, the shorter the time that the charge is stable. Figure 9.26 illustrates stable time at temperature for charges made from two common types of explosive. Guide lines
about high temperature charge selection will vary, but most wireline conveyed charges should be stable at the temperature for 16 to 24 hours while tubing conveyed perforating charges should be stable
at the bottom hole temperature for 100 hours or more. Higher temperature charges for extended times
above 300F (149C) are available although they are more costly. When selecting a high temperature
charge, remember that it is part of a system; all parts of the system, including detonator, detonation
cord, charges, seals and mechanical components must be rotated for the temperature and must work
together.

200

10

TlMEATTUhPEIUTURE HRS

Figure 9.26: Approximate time at temperature stability for three

common explosive types. Other materials are available.

Perforation Size

With shaped charges, the penetration of the perforation has usually been thought to be proportional to
the weight of the charge. Although the charge size has an effect on the performance, the shape of the
liner, the internal standoff in the gun, and the overall design are also important. In the through tubing
applications where the carriers are small, the charge size will vary from 2 grams to about 8 grams with
the smallest charges used in the 1-9/16 in. and 1-1 1/16 in. hollow carriers and the larger sizes used in
expendable strips. In the hollow carrier casing guns of 3-1/8 in. or larger diameter, charge weights of

9-6

over 12 grams are common. The largest normally used charges are the large expendable guns and
casing guns in which the charges are over 50 grams. Open hole perforating guns that are designed to
reach beyond mud damage in a open hole completion may use charges of 90 grams or more.
Perforation length is usually the most important criterion in a perforating design for natural completions or for tests on exploratory wells. As shown in Figure 9.7 for the nondamaged case, the productivity ratio is dependent upon the length of the perforation.6 When damage in the perforation is
considered, it is recognized as a controlling aspect of the flow into the perforation.7i8 The damage
from perforating, often referred to as the crush zone, is a compacted assortment of crushed formation
particles thrust aside by the jet. Removal of the crush zone by acidizing or underbalance perforating is
necessary for high productivity. Flow restriction caused by the crush zone can be estimated from several models but all depend on a subjective guess of the crush zone thickness and permeability.8t9In
wells that must be completed without further stimulation, long perforations in a high shot density pattern are recommended.

1.c

0.6

0.s

Mokmot

I2

IS

ID

PLRCORATIOM LENOTH (Inches)

(Locke, JPT, 1981)

Figure 9.7:

Productivity ratio vs. length of perforation for various

perforation densities. Note that the data assumes no
damage.

Factors such as hydraulic fracturing or prepacked gravel pack operations negate the advantages of a
few extra inches of perforated length. For hydraulic fracturing or gravel pack treatments, having a
large entrance hole through the pipe and cement is more important than total perforation penetration.
Although rarely considered, the perforation diameter also influences the productivity ratio, Figure 9.8,
and the drawdown pressure for a given rate (Fanning Equation), Figure 9.9.6 The perforation diameter
is dependent on charge design and the clearance of the gun in the casing. In instances such as sand
control operations, unstable formations (including some chalks) and wells which are to be hydraulically fracture stimulated, the perforation diameter is important enough to dominate perforator selection. Flow through an open perforation is usually controlled by the permeability of the formation.
Where the formation permeability is essentially infinite (very large natural fractures and vugs), the
pressure drop through a single perforation is:

9-7

Ap

0.2369 qLp
$E2

where:
Ap
q
p

d
&

= perforation pressure drop, psi

= flow rate per perforation, bbl/min
= fluid density, Ib m/gal
= perforation diameter, inch
= perforation efficiency, usually 0.95.

Big hole charges may offer some disadvantages as well. The design of big hole charges produces
maximum force impact at the wall of the casing and can cause damage (and weakening) to the formation adjacent to the entry hole through the concrete. For completions in weak formations where gravel
packing or frac packing will not be used, deep penetrating charges at high density (12 to 16 spf) are
recommended.

IJ

f
*

5: 0.9

0.8

a7

Figure 9.8:

(Locke,JPT, 1981)
Productivity ratio vs. perforation diameter for various
ratios of damaged permeability.

Two factors that affect the charge performance are standoff and gun clearance. Standoff is the distance between the base of the charge and the inside of the port plug or scallop and is a fixed part of
the gunkharge system design. Gun clearance is the distance from the outside of the port plug or scallop to the wall of the casing. The gun clearance distance for a 4 in. hollow carrier, 90" phased gun in
7 in., 23 Ib/fl, N-80 casing could be anywhere from zero to 2.3 in. depending on positioning of the gun.
Unless centralizers are used on the gun, one edge of the gun will contact the casing wall and maximum clearance will occur at 180" to the wall contact. For this reason, small guns are purposely decentralized by magnets and the charges are all aligned to fire in a line in the direction of the magnetic

9-8

.I

.oa

\
1

.-a+TbTrki
CERfO(UTIQ

o h

Oboo

D
u
y
m
R

0-:

(crrrr)

(Locke, JPT, 1981)

Figure 9.9:

The pressure differential produced for smaller

perforation diameters from the Fanning equation.

positioning (0"phasing). Larger guns with small clearance distances use charges aligned in rows
around the gun.
The phasing is the angle between the charges, Figure 9.10. Although there are many possible angles,
there are five common values; O", 90, 60,120, and 180". In the 0"phasing, all the shots are in a
row and the gun must be decentralized against the side of the casing so the charges have minimum
standoff. This phasing is normally only used in the smaller O.D. guns or guns in very large casing. The
0" phasing offers some drawbacks since the practice of putting all shots in a row lowers yield strength
and makes the casing more susceptible to splits and collapse at high shot densities (over
16 ~ p f ) . ~ ~Fracture
' ~ ~ ' ' stimulating in wells which were perforated with 0" phasing also results in a
slightly higher incidence of fracturing screenouts than with 90"or 120" phasing. It is unknown whether
the screenouts result from the smaller entrance holes or from the fact that one wing of the fracture
must wrap around the pipe.
Of the other common phasing possibilities, 60,90" and 120" are the most efficient choices from a
stimulation standpoint since they will produce a perforation just a few degrees from any possible fracture direction. These phased carriers do not necessarily need to be centralized to give good perforations since regardless of where they contact the casing at least two or three good perforations per foot
should be formed. In the small carrier guns only 0" phasing should be used, especially in large casing.
The potential problems with using a 90"phased through tubing gun is shown in Figure 9.11. As shown
in the figure, the perforations nearest the gun will be fully developed while the perforations with the
largest gun clearance (the distance from the surface of the gun to the casing wall) are short and have
a very small diameter. Because of previously mentioned problems and production restriction, 0" phasing and some through tubing guns should be avoided when casing guns can produce perforations that
more closely fit the need of the completion.

9-9

COMMON GUN PHASING

Figure 9.10:

Typical phasings offered by casing carrier guns. Most low

shot density guns will be O", 120, 90 or 180'. High shot density guns will use 60" or similar phasing.

(original source unknown)

Figure 9.11 : Approximate hole orientation, diameter and penetration from firing a 1-11/16" 90" phased through tubing
perforating gun in 7" casing. Note that the perfs on
the far side of the casing (maximum clearance) are
0.1 to 0.18" diameter (just larger than a pencil lead).

The effect of perforating phasing on production may be seen in Figure 9.12. This data from Locke6 is
not corrected for damage permeability but is a reasonably good comparison between productivity of
perforations of O", 180",and 90" phasing. For a shot penetration of 12 in., a productivity ratio of 1.2
results from 90" phasing of 4 shots per foot, while the productivity ratio is 0.99 (productivity will be
decreased in comparison to openhole flow and "formation damage" may be seen on a buildup) when
the 4 shots are in 0" phasing. Again, this is ideal behavior and does not consider damage.

9-10

-1

1.2

1.1

Ef

1.-

---

1.0

0.8

/
I

(Locke,JPT, 1981)

Figure 9.12: The effect of charge phasing on the productivity

of the unfractured well If damage is ignored.
Productivities of cased-hole wells are dependent upon the perforation density (number of holes per ft).
Productivity ratios for various shot densities versus perforation penetration were shown previously in
Figure 9.7. The productivity ratio used in the figure is defined as:

Productivity Ratio

qP
90

where

qp

= flow rate from cased and perforated wellbore

= flow rate from uncased wellbore.

qo
Assuming all perforations are open to flow, shot densities of 4 per foot with 90" phasing are usually
sufficient to insure the equivalent of openhole productivity. However, increased shot densities (greater
than 4 per foot) may improve productivity ratios under certain conditions, such as very high flow rate
wells or in gravel packed wells. The cause for the increase is that the real number of open perforations
(those producing or taking fluid is only about 50% of the total holes in the pipe (The 50% value was
reached after examining hundreds of hours of downhole N recordings in dozens of wells). The effect
of perforation density on the producing rate of a well in a highly productive gas reservoir as plotted on
an inflow function and the effect on modeled cumulative production rate is shown in Figures 9.13
through 9.15. In this example, Cheng uses data from a high flow capacity dry gas well with depth
10,000 ft, 2-3/8" tubing, BHT = 200F, Pr = 3500 psi, pg = 0.75, h = 50 ft, S, = 45%, <p. = 18%, k =
100 md, and a 160 acre well spacing to highlight differences in flow with 1 to 8 spf. Differences of an
additional 2.5 bcf gas recovery in two years, Figure 9.13, is a strong argument for shot densities of 6
to 8 per foot as opposed to 1 spf.'* Figure 9.1 4 highlights productivity and payouts at the various shot
densities for the modeled case, while Figure 9.1 5 tracks flow rate vs. shot density. All three figures
were drawn for the case of 1000 psi wellhead pressure (very high) and all reflect damage traditional to
overbalance perforating.

9-1 1

Figure 9.13: Cumulative gas production vs. time for an

example case study. Productivity difference
between 1 and 6 shots per foot is about 2.5 bcf
at 2 years.

I
I

24

hoQcrionno.MMdd

Figure 9.14: Effect of shot density on rate and economic payout on the same example
model run used in Figure 9.13. Note that rate and payout maximize at about
6 to 8 shots per foot. This data is from a specialized dry gas example.

Referring to Figure 9.7, note that Locke also shows that shot density can be more critical to productivity than penetration. A single perforation 12 in. deep is not as effective as four perforations only 3 in.
deep.6 This analysis, however, neglects damage and the possibility that the shorter perforations may
not contact permeable, undamaged reservoir. When the effects of drilling damage are included,
Figure 9.16, productivity can drop ~harp1y.l~
This is a solid argument for using high shot densities of
12 shots or more per foot in high rate wells.
The ideal fluid for perforating operations is a solids free fluid which will not cause byproducts when
exposed to the formation. Acceptable fluids may include 5% to 10% HCI, 10% Acetic acid, 2% (or
more) KCI water, 2% NH&I water, clean brines and filtered diesel. If a dirty fluid is used, there is a distinct possibility that formation damage will occur due to particle plugging at the surface of the perforation tunnels. Even when a high pressure differential toward the wellbore is used, clean fluids are still

9-12

't
0
0

9
6
8 1 0 1 2
shot density, spt
4

(Cheng)

Figure 9.15: Shot density vs. flow rate for a model case run on a
simulator.

-*-I

0.3

(Locke, JPT, 1981)

Figure 9.16:

Productivity vs. damaged zone thickness with no crush

zone for the example case of a 9" long perforation.

recommended to avoid flow of particles into the perforations in event of a mechanical breakdown,
when formation pressure or productivity is less than expected, or when the well has to be shut in
before all the wellbore fluids have been produced. Drilling mud should never be used as a perforating
fluid. Drilling mud is designed to form a mud cake on the face of a permeable formation. If drilling mud
is used and the pressure differential (either by design or by accident) is toward the formation from the
wellbore, a drilling mud cake will be formed in the perforations that may be difficult to remove unless
the formation can be produced at a high drawdown for a long p e r i ~ d . ' ~Diesel
~ ' ~ or oil may be used as
perforating fluids if the full column is diesel or oil, but 6.8 Ib/gal diesel cannot be kept spotted below
9.0 Ib/gal brine water. Diesel should also be filtered before use.
Perforating produces a zone of damage around the perforation in which permeability may be reduced
substantially below that of native state f o r m a t i ~ n . ~ >For
' ~ * the
' ~ condition of no drilling damage, Locke'

9-13

has shown that the crushed zone permeability can be as much as 50% less than normal formation
permeability without seriously affecting productivity ratio, Figure 9.1 7. These figures show the effect of
perforation length and phasing when a crush zone is present. Longer perforations are less influenced
by the crush zone than are short perforations. Phased perforations, such as 90"phased perfs are less
affected than 0" phased perforations. Klotz, et a1.,13 pointed out that permeability of the compacted
zone is less than the wellbore permeability which has been reduced by drilling fluid and cement particles and filtrate. McLeod' offered the following example of the effect of severely reduced permeability
on production. The example is very interesting in terms of the amount of pressure drop inflicted on the
producing system by damaged perforations.

1.1

0. PHASING

0.9

o.8

1.0

0.5

0.0

CRUSHED ZONE PERYfAllLlTY

fORYAT1ON PERYEA8ILITI

,KC,Ku)

(from Locke)

Figure 9.17: The damage (up to 50% of initial) in a perforation may

have little effect if just the crush zone is considered as
in this example from Locke.

Q = 8080 MSCFD
net h = 26 ft
T = 245F = 705"R
re= 1320 ft
Z- 1.415
w = 4.5 in. = 0.375 ft
j . ~= 0.035 Cp
Pr= 10,162 psig = 10,177 psia
ko = 200 md
rd = 0.875 ft
kd = perm of near wellbore, damaged by mud and cement filtrate = 50 md
kdp = perm of crush zone surrounding perforation = 5 md
NOTE: the permeabilities are estimates, not measured values
G = gas gravity = 0.635
Shotslft = 2
Phasing = 180"
Lp = Perf. penetration into formation = 0.75 ft

9-14

Perf. diameter = 0.38 in. = 0.0317 ft (Perf radius, rp, = 0.19 in.)
rdp = Compacted zone thickness = 0.5 in.
N = total number of perfs = 52
Laminar flow skin
1. Perforation geometry skin, Sp = 0.45 (see Hongg)

Sp, the skin due to the perforations, can be established from the nomographs of Hong.
2. Weilbore damage from drilling

Sd

(g-

1)n- rd

rw

(g-

l)/n- 0.875
0.375

3.9

(9.3)
3. Perforation compacted, damage zone

Sdp

0*1i,:6)*5)
30.95

(52) 26
(0.75) T
2oo -y:)/n(
-

4. Combined laminar skin, S

Sp+ Sd+ Sdp

0.45 + 3.9 + 30.95

35.3

Turbulence Parameter, D

2.6 x 10ok*2 = 2.6 x 1010(5)

BG
D

2.22 x 10-15 ZLp2rpI

2.22 x 10-15

l a 2

0.03285

9-15

3.77 x log

[ ~ l
oh

log (0.635)
[ (52)3.77(0.75)
(0.0158)
X

Calculated Pressure Drop

P&
AP

=8931 psia
= 1246 psi

Thus, the damage in the near wellbore, plus the damage in the crushed zone can cause severe pressure drops. It should be noted, however, that most damage from drilling mud is confined to the face of
the formation. In cases of nonwater sensitive sandstones, the damage zone should not be of significance. The crushed zone will be created regardless of damage, but may be minimized by underbalance or extreme overbalance perforating.
Partial Completion

Inflow of fluids into perforations of an unfractured well, Figure 9.18, shows the normal convergence
into the sides and the end of the perforation. Partial completions may be used for a number of reasons
concerned with controlling or diverting a stimulation job or to slow water or gas coning. Regardless of
the intentions, partial completions restrict flow both into and out of the zone. Partial completions will
appear as skin on a buildup test where the net formation pay height is used instead of the shorter, perforated height. Another severe detriment of partial completions is the effect the limited number of perforations have on fracturing fluids. Most of the high viscosity fracturing fluids are shear sensitive and
undergo radical viscosity change when forced at high rates through a limited number of perforations.

Figure 9.18:

Left Normal convergence of flow towards a perforation in a fully completed zone.

Right: Convergence of flow towards a perforation in a partially completed zone.

Partial completion or limited entry perforating is increasingly being used in combination with stimulations to get effective diversion of injected fluids into all zones. The number of perforations needed for
this type of diversion depends on the fluid injection rate, the injected fluid viscosity, and the pressure
differential or pressure rise needed to inject fluid into all the zones. If the interval is perforated evenly,
fluid will enter the high permeability zones first; then as rate increases, the pressure in the tubulars will
increase from perforation friction and fluid will be displaced by the higher differential pressure into
lower permeability zones.

9-16

The diverting efficiency of the process depends on pumping fast enough to create the pressure rise.
The process does not prevent fluid from entering the higher permeability zones, it only limits the
amount that enters to the amount that can flow through the perforations. The downhole injection rate
must be matched to the numbers of perforations to get effective diversion. The process will work in
either matrix treating or in fracturing but fluid diversion is only affected as far as the tubular contact
with the formation.
If the necessary pressure rise is known, the number of perforations to produce that pressure at the
treating rate can be calculated from friction pressure curves, equations or by the use of a nodal analysis simulator.
The partial completion technique is also very useful in combination with ball sealer diversion. At typical rates, using neutral density ball sealers, perforation densities of 1-2 shotslft yield the best ball
action or diversion. Balls are very effective but also only affect the fluid diversion to the contact area
of the formation.
Any time a partial completion is used, consideration should be given to adding more perforations after
the treatment.

Underbalance Perforating
Underbalance perforating or perforating with the pressure in the wellbore lower than the pressure in
the formation is generally acknowledged to be one of the best methods for creating open, undamaged
In underbalance perforating, the pressure differential from the formation of the wellbore helps remove the crushed formation from the perforation and provides improved flow channels.
The pressure differentials necessary to remove damage from a perforation is affected by pressure and
flow
and perhaps limited by formation integrity.20r21The pressure differentials necessary for
perforation cleanup usually range from approximately 500 psi to over 4000 psi and have been established by trial and error in many
Published studies of the flow rate necessary to remove damage observed that serious perforation
plugging occurred whenever the pressure was higher in the wellbore than in the f ~ r m a t i o n . The
~~-~~
plugs consisted of crushed formation, liner particles, case material from the charges, and mud. It was
significant that the plugs that formed when perforating was performed in heavy mud were almost
impossible to remove by reversing pressure. Underbalance perforating followed by flow has been
shown to be the best method for cleaning perforations and establishing high flow capacity from natural
completions in moderate to high permeability ~ o r e . * Even
~ * ~when
~
compared to surging and washing,
underbalance perforating followed by flow was s~perior.~
Underbalance studies of over 100 wells that were underbalance perforated, tested, acidized, and
retested are shown in Figures 9.1 9 and 9.20.18The data in the figures can be successfully approximated by:

AP-

3000
-

3Ji(
This study compared creation of damage free perforations by selection of underbalance pressures
based on permeability. The original ranges for this work were advanced by Bell, who theorized that
the underbalance necessary for cleaning should be related to permeability.7*18In formations of very
high permeability, such as the Berea core used for most test targets, underbalance pressures on the
order of a few hundred psi are quite adequate to generate sufficient flow for cleaning the perforation.
In formations of lower permeability, however, higher pressure differentials are needed. In unconsoli-

9-17

dated or poorly consolidated formations, the mechanical strength of the formation must be considered,
and the lowest useful underbalance pressure are suggested. The scatter of the crossover points (in
Figures 9.1 9 and 9.20) on each side of the line in both figures is an indication that other conditions
may be affecting the performance of the perforations. These conditions may represent a myriad of factors including inaccuracies in estimating pressure and permeability, extensive damage from drilling,
and fluid viscosity differences. In almost all of the test cases, the guns were pulled and inspected after
the initial flow test. Wells in which guns did not completely fire or in which charges malfunctioned were
not included in the test.

100

..........-....'.......
.. ........

(.

.. . . . .. . . .

.......I.........

.. ..,.......
.. .. ......
.......,.....
......... ..'......... .

-.....
......_

I.

'
.
.
.
I
I..
.
.
.

0.1

(King, et al., JPT, 1986)

Figure 9.19: Underbalance used on tubing conveyed perforating completions

in oil zones in sandstone.

ACID DID NOT IMPROVE PROD

ACID DID IMPROVE PROD
0.01

100

.i

. .

:. : :

1000

.
;

.. . . . . .
i
: rw UJZlli
10000

TOTAL UNDERBALANCE PSI

(King, et al., JPT, 1986)

Figure 9.20: Underbalance used on tubing conveyed perforating completions in gas zones in sandstone.

9-18

Although underbalance pressure is seen to be of critical importance in generating clean perforations,

it is the flow rate created by the underbalance that is responsible for cleaning the perforation. The
importance of flow after even underbalance perforating cannot be overemphasized. The volume of
flow needed from a single perforation to clean debris is estimated at a minimum of 4 gallons.30 If the
permeability is too low to achieve significant flow rate (cl md), underbalance perforating may not be
effective. The underbalance technique may also be used with the through tubing gun, provided the
gun is run through a lubricator into the well. The tree is OR the well before the run and well control is
established since the tubing, packer, and tree are all set before the tool is detonated.
The most frequent causes of failure for underbalance perforating are low formation permeability and
lack of flow immediately after the perforating gun fires. Candidate formations are best based on permeabilities of I md, although sandstones are usually much better candidates.
Extreme Overbalance Perforating

Extreme Overbalance Perforating, EOP, is a micro fracture initiating process that is applied at the moment
of initial perforating or as a surge process to existing perforations. The technique uses stored gas energy
in the tubing to break down the zone. Bottomhole pressure equivalents to 1.4 psi/ft and higher are instantaneously applied through use of a nitrogen gas supercharge contained in the tubing. The energy is isolated in the tubulars of an unperforated well and behind a shear disk or other device in the tubing on a well
that has already been perforated. The energy is isolated in the tubulars of an unperforatedwell and behind
a shear disk or other device in the tubing on a well that has already been perforated.
The energy imparted is more sudden than a traditional hydraulic fracturing process and more sustained
than an explosive or propellant treatment.
The fracture created by the EOP surge is more likely to fracture all exposed zones than a traditional fracture process applied as an all liquid hydraulic fracturing process. Work with production logs and radioactive
isotope tagged sand after EOP jobs indicate that multiple zones do tend to be broken down more evenly
when EOP is used.
Although a fracture is created during extreme overbalance perforating or surging, its growth does not
appear to be controlled initially by formation stresses or traditional rock mechanics forces. Because of the
very high pressure of the initial surge, the pressure behind the surge is probably greater than the fields of
maximum and minimum principle stresses in the formation. As a result, the initial direction of the fracture is
in the plane of greatest mechanical near-wellbore weakness; the perforations. After the six second life of
the pulse (Arco estimate), the fracture direction probably is controlled by the traditional stress forces and
subsequent fracture growth goes perpendicular to plane of least principle stress.
The EOP process appears ideally suited for:
1. Acid breakdown of perforations in carbonates where the traditional stimulation is an acid/ballout job.
2. Creating initial fracture breakdown in wells with linked, multiple zones.
3. Low permeability formations (below about 1 md) where a production test is needed prior to stimulating the well.
4. Where breakdown pressures are too high for economic fracture treatment (this conclusion is not well
supported by available data).
Although the designs of treatments are still being refined, the initial successes have focused on maximizing the kinetic energy in the job. This is accomplished by minimizing the liquid in the tubing to eliminate friction pressure of liquid movement in the tubing during the surge. Most job designs are focusing on filling the
tubing with nitrogen and filling the casing below the packer with liquid.

Tubing Conveyed Perforating

The tubing conveyed perforating, TCP, system utilizes a casing gun run on a tubing string with a
packer above the gun. The casing guns are run as tail pipe below the packer thus allowing the packer
to be set before perforating. The system achieves large entrance hole size, longer penetration than
through tubing guns, and offers the options of phased orientation of charges while perforating in

9-19

underbalanced or overbalanced conditions. Because the guns are tubing-conveyed, zones of over
1000 ft in some areas have been successfully perforated in one run. A typical installation is shown in
Figure 9.21.
tovrrEnONS
WITH P E W E M
PAClERSLn
ON WRELINE

AND U S I N G

OUWI RUW IN
ON TWINOAND

THROWWME
PACK#

SYmU FOR

DITLOMTORY.
TESflNG.AND
*ullponMEW
WOCIDUREt
PRDvtDB roll
U R B E FLOW
ARWWE
WITHDMWAL
OF WE, AND
IUI REURIIY.

(Vann Tool Company)

Figure 9.21: Examples of tubing conveyed equipment for various conditions.

The equipment involved in tubing conveyed perforating is varied since several suppliers offer the service. The technique may also be adapted for special completions involving artificial lift methods or
multiple completion^.^'-^ Basic equipment involved in underbalance perforating includes the packer,
the guns, initiation or firing systems, and specialty items for particular applications.
The packer may be a retrievable or permanent model or the guns may be run with a seal assembly
and stung through a seal bore permanent packer previously set in the well. After the guns have been
run and the wellbore is isolated, the underbalance is set by swabbing the tubing, nitrogen jetting, circulating through a vent assembly or other method.
Firing the guns is done by a drop bar, battery pack, slick line, electric line, or by pressure level. The
drop bar, a solid steel bar that sets off an impact detonator, is the most common current method. The
initiator or firing head is usually set above the packer in the tubing and a detonating cord leads to the
guns. A rupture disk or mechanical valve above the firing head separates the pressure in the tubing
from the fluids below the packer. With the firing of the guns, the well fluids surge through the vent
above the guns or through the guns themselves and flow into the tubing.
Specialized equipment includes: disconnecting subs that can drop the guns after firing, shock absorbers to prevent tubing or packer damage when firing hundreds of charges at once, multiple firing initiators for multiple completions, and backup firing systems to avoid pulling a gun.

9-20

A major drawback to tubing conveyed perforating is that there is no way of knowing, except by pulling
the guns, how many charges were fired. A signal charge device that either fires a small explosive
charge or trips a hammer device a few seconds after the primer cord detonation reaches the bottom of
the gun can be used (in conjunction with a sensitive sound recording device) to determine that the detonation cord was ignited to the bottom of the gun. Although the detonation of the signal charge will not
tell how many charges were fired, it does signify that the primer cord has burned past all the charges.
Since the major mechanical problems of the TCP systems have been in two areas: (1) failure to initiate the guns at the firing head, and (2) failure to initiate the next gun at the gun junctions, the use of
a bottom shot detector is very advantageous. The reports of early use of this system indicates it has
been very successful on land based wells but has given problems on offshore well due to the high
noise levels associated with platforms.
The frequency of misfires depends upon both equipment and personnel. A worldwide study generated
a failure-to-fire rate of about 6% for tubing conveyed perforating. However, some locations with experienced crews reported almost no failures, while areas with less experienced operators reported a
higher failure rate. Failure rates with wireline conveyed perforating guns are harder to obtain but are
usually stated at 2 to 3%. New systems or new crews may generate early failure rates of 50%.
Wireline Perforating

When a well is perforated with a wireline gun with the differential pressure into the well, the flowing
fluid tries to pull the cable up the hole because of the lift effect produced by fluid drag and the effect of
differential pressure on the area of the gun or able.^^^^ In normal operations, this drag is minimal
and will probably not be noticed unless the well produces several thousand barrels per day.
The magnitude of the drag on the cable, Figure 9-22, depends upon the flow regime illustrated in
Figure 9.22a. Following perforating, the liquid column used to control the amount of underbalance
pressure is lightened by gas production from the formation. The liquid in the tubing also starts to flow
upward due to fluid influx from the formation. As more gas enters the casing there is a period of time
where slugs of water are rapidly lifted by the gas. The velocity increase as the slugs rise is due to the
expansion of the gas. After all the liquid has been produced from the tubing, the gas flow can be
described as auasi steadv state. The maximum lift on the cable will occur during flow of slugs of water
and gas when velocities of the liquid slugs are high?5

Figure 9.22: An idealized schematic of the flow regimes of wellbore fluid and the
types of lift (drag) produced on a wireline suspended in the middle of
the tubulars. In actual operations, the cable is always lying against
the side of the tubing because of wellbore inclination. Drag is minimized when the wireline is near the boundary.

9-21

If possible after firing underbalance with a wireline gun, the gun should be lowered beneath the perforated zone to minimize the lift force on the gun body. If it is necessary to flow the well as the gun is run
through the tubing, sinker bars will be needed on the gun and the well should be choked back. Very
close clearances between the gun and tubing will result in very high lift forces if the well is flowing.

Highly Deviated Wells

Highly deviated wells may create problems for wireline guns. The wireline gun problems have essentially been with placement of any tool due to friction of the assembly in the high angle holes overcoming the gravitational effect. Flexible tools and roller units have been used to improve success but
operations are still limited in holes with deviations of more than 45.*O
Tubing conveyed completions in holes of up to 75 or more are common.21The higher angle holes
make the use of J set packer difficult, thus most packers in the high angle wells are set by pressuring
up on the tubing. When the guns are run on the drillstring, pressuring up to set a packer often allows a
large amount of dried debris such as cuttings and mud to fall out of the tubing and cover the firing
head. The circulating vent for debris removal which is commonly run above the firing head cannot be
used in these cases since the firing head is below the pressure set packer. When perforating under
these conditions, the guns should be run only on a new or clean workstring or on the new or clean production tubing.
Depth Control

The most critical field parameter of a perforating treatment is depth control. Drillers measurements of
depth are based on pipe tally and are not usually corrected for stretch under load or effects of temperature. Wireline measurements, even if corrected for stretch may still be in error. The wheels in the
depth measurement device on logging trucks are calibrated for new cable. Wear in the cable, cable
stretch, and wear of the measurement wheels can all cause inaccuracy. Magnetic marks or depth flags
on the cable are helpful but can be thrown off by cable stretch. The only reliable method for spotting
the perforating gun is to use the openhole gamma ray log as a base and to run a confirmation section
of gamma ray log. Some companies offer a gamma ray tool that is fitted in the head of the perforating
gun; these devices should be used wherever possible. On tubing conveyed guns, the confirmation GR
is run with the tubing in the hole before the packer is set. For guns run on wireline, the GR should be
run immediately before the perforating job preferably on the same cable to be used to carry the gun.
The gamma ray log is matched with the openhole gamma ray log, Figure 9.23, and the casing collar
locations correlated with the log. Remember to subtract or add the distance from the RA detector to
the CCL to get the depths exactly on target. To account for creep in the wireline and to very accurately
zero in on the depth, the collar locator should be raised very slowly into the collar above the pay and
stopped when the signal for the peak (collar location) is only half formed. This indicates the tool is
exactly in the center of the collar. To find the spot where the tool is centered on the collar and remains
without changing may take several very slow passes. Once located, the wireline depth of the collar
above the pay can be correlated to the openhole gamma ray log. If the casing (or the tubing in a tubing
conveyed operation) is run with a short joint or pup joint near the pay, it will be much easier to correlate tool depth on repeat runs.
Openhole and cased hole gamma ray logs rarely agree exactly on depth due to differences in cable
and chart paper. The depth correlation is to be made to the openhole log. If two sections are to be perforated and a single shift will not align the cased hole log to the openhole log, each section should be
aligned independently to the openhole log.
If a short joint is not run with the casing, the collars should be counted to assure depth control agreement with the wireline measurement. The most common depth control problem with perforations is
shooting them one joint off; a complete miss for most zones. Radioactive PIP tags on the casing are
also helpful in determining depth. The wells plug-back-depth (or float collar) can also be tagged up
with the bottom of the gun to check depth. If the float collar has been drilled out, it can also be used as
a short joint for identification.

9-22

Figure 9.23: An example of overlaying the cased hole gamma-ray log

strip over the original open hole gamma-ray log to tie in the
collar depth for depth control on the perforating run.

After running the perforating gun and locating the collar above the pay, note the distance from the collar locator to the first shot (to the first shot of the appropriate section if a selective fire tool is used) and
position the first shot at the top of the zone to be perforated. With this method, the tool can be positioned within a few inches of the desired spot.
A stepwise sequence of the depth control procedure is shown below:
1. Correct cased hole log to openhole log, overlay and record interval on cased hole log.

2. Determine distance of CCL to top shot.

3. Run CCL and perforating gun and correlate collars to openhole log depths, record on cased hole
log.
4. Perforate.

5. Log a few collars up to confirm depth or rerun gamma ray if a tracer was used in the upper and
lower port plugs.

Cement Damage
Contrary to some existing opinions, there is little shattering or cracking damage to cement from perforating. Tests have been conducted on over 50 targets with unconfined compressive strength from
1500 psi to over 9000 psi. When the perforation is more than about four inches from a free face there
was almost no instance of cement shattering noted after firing. Splitting (longitudinal) along the perf
planes may be seen in some targets but is usually reduced when the targets are bounded by steel
retaining forms that limit compressional wave rebound from free surfaces. In short, cracking following
perforating is the result of the test method, not the perforating process.

Casing Damage
The shock of firing the charges must be absorbed by either the casing or the carrier. The air filled hollow carrier gun absorbs the detonation pressure hence there is less possibility of casing splits due to

9-23

rupture. This becomes very important when shooting a large number of holes or whenever casing
strength is important. As shown in Figure 9.24, the collapse resistance of the casing (and resistance
to splits) depends upon the number of holes in the pipe and their alignment (shot phasing).lOtll A new
generation of casing guns with staggered phasing (i.e., 37.5") has improved the casing collapse resistance loss. These guns, even using big hole charge, often result in less than 10% loss (the typical
variance of casing strength) of crush strength at shot densities of 16 or more shots per foot.

(King, SPE 18843)

Figure 9.24: Casing crush resistance tests on tubes. The tubes
model a 7" casing perforated with 0 to 36 spf.

Perforating with the hollow carrier causes only slight reduction in yield or collapse strength of the casing. The expendables cause substantially more damage since the casing must stand the shock of detonation. Research by Godfrey and Methven4on casing damage at downhole conditions determined
that expendable jets (limited to six shots per foot) do not cause significant damage to (1) high strength
casing without flaws even when unsupported, or (2) high-strength casing with flaws (laps and seams)
that is well supported by cement. Casing of low or unknown strength, corroded, old, with flaws, or
poorly supported casing should definitely be shot with a hollow carrier gun.

Reperforating Considerations
Reperforating can often be beneficial to repair problems such as scale or paraffin plugged perforations, unknown shallow formation damage or questionable perforations. If the buildup test shows very
high skin even after a properly designed acid treatment, then the problem may be poor perforations.
As shown previously in Figure 9.24, pipe in good condition can tolerate many phased shots per foot
without being seriously weakened. When reperforating, at least two shots per foot are recommended
and three or four may provide the best treatment. Ifthe pipe strength is critical, phasing of 0" should
not be used in reperforating especially where 0" phasing was used initially. If two sets of 0" phased
shots are used in the same interval, the chance for casing splits is greatly increased. Since the Oo
phased guns are usually magnetically positioned and ride the low side of the pipe, the possibility of lining up new and old shots is too great to use the 0" phasing. If it is necessary to reperforate under
these conditions, the magnetic positioner on the gun should be offset 15" to reduce the possibility of
the new perforations lining up with the old ones.

9-24

Stimulation Considerations

The type of stimulation or ultimate well completion should influence the perforation design.
The damage to a cement sheath from jet perforating should be slight if the cement is continuous and
not heavily ~ontaminated.~'Even the light weight cements have been shown to be significantly
undamaged by p e r f ~ r a t i n g . ~ ~
In gravel packing operations, a large number of big holes are usually desired to reduce the velocity of
fluids coming into the wellbore. The decreased fluid velocity will carry less formation sand grains and
will result in less fines movement and plugging in the pack. Since the perforations may be filled with
sand, more perforations are required to generate the same productivity as open perforations.
Fracturing stimulations require sufficient perforations to avoid detrimentally shearing the fluid (lowering the viscosity by degrading the polymer or crosslinked system) and to avoid needlessly high purnping costs. The viscosity of a fracturing fluid is a designed part of the stimulation treatment, and if
altered, the treatment may not meet expectations of sand carrying capacity. If this carrying capacity is
destroyed by high shear, the sand may fall out of the fluid too soon causing a blockage of the perforations or fracture by injected sand (a screenout). The friction resistance offered by a perforation during
pumping is approximated with the following equation:40

Fp = 0 . 2 3 7 ~( Q~ / ( P f c N ( d 2 ) 2 ) ) 2
where
FP
P1

= friction resistance, psi

= density of the liquid in Ib/gal

= flow rate in BPM

Q
=
a flow coefficient, usually between 0.65 and 0.87
Pfc
N
= number of perforations open to flow
d
= diameter of perforation, in.
Another problem encountered in fracturing, which may be eliminated by having the perforating treatment designed for the stimulation, is a flow restriction from the fracture to the wellbore caused by 0"
phased perforations. When all the perforations are in one vertical line, the sand packed crack leading
to the fracture can be a source of restricted production since the line of perforations may be up to 180"
away from one of the fracture wings. This means that for both fracture wings to be productive, the
sand packed crack must wrap around the pipe. The fracture direction will be in the direction of least
principle stress in the formation and is not influenced by the direction of the perforations.

Deviated wells pose a problem of tool movement and depth measurement due to the high degree of
friction or drag between the cable or the tool and the wall of the pipe. Subs and tools with small wheels
plus weights on the tool make movement easier, Figure 9.25. Tubing conveyed operations usually
work better in deviated wells than wireline conveyed systems. Firing systems are often more troublesome in deviated wells when using tubing conveyed guns.
Concentric strings of casing will reduce the penetration of any perforating ~ h a r g eThe
. ~ thickness
~ ~ ~ ~
of the string of casing, as well as the thickness of the two sheaths of cement which must be penetrated can reduce the length of perforation penetration in where an effective perforation may not be
created in a well unless the deepest penetrating charge is used. The use of through tubing perforators
for shooting concentric strings is not recommended, since both hole size and penetration are reduced
with small charges.

9-25

In deviated wells were concentric strings are to be perforated, the perforating gun will ride the low side
of a pipe. When a casing gun is used for this operation, shot phasing of 60, 90" or 120" should be
used to obtain the best chances of making perforations by the charges with the least standoff. Use of
centralization techniques (if possible) on the guns run in deviated wells are recommended if hydraulic
fracturing is to be used. This will allow perforations to be placed near both fracture wings. Centralization will also improve the roundness of the holes since the gun clearance will be near ideal. If inadequate perforations are a problem in wells with concentric strings, the innermost casing can be milled
out and the completion made through the outer casing.
When casing is run and cemented through washed out sections, the cement sheath can be sufficiently
thick to deny access to the formation with any perforator. When drilling a well into an easily washable
pay zone, care must be taken to obtain a gauge or near gauge hole so that the perforations will reach
into the pay.
Perforating charges are subject to high temperature degradation by sublimation of the powder or by
auto detonation.
Critical gun components should be analyzed to determine stability at temperature. Charges, detonating cord, detonator, port plugs and seals must all be considered.

Stimulations in Deviated Wells Effect of Perfs

The perforating design needed for a cased and cemented deviated well may be different than for a
vertical well, even in a similar formation. The main factors are cost of perforating in very long sections
and need for focusing injected fluid into a single fracture when fracturing.
The number of perforations needed for any well, deviated or vertical, depends on the inflow potential.
While perforating costs can indeed increase as pay contact increases, a better method of cost control
is to use logging methods to identify zones of best porosity, oil saturation and pressure (or flow where
PLT data is usable, and concentrate perforations in those areas. The estimates on numbers of open
perforations runs from 30% to 80%, with the authors view at 50% (from examination of downhole TV
tapes in dozens of wells).
In the case of fracture stimulating in highly deviated wells, there is little to prevent multiple fractures
from initiatings along the wellbore. Since fracture growth is driven by the amount of fluid entering the
fracture, increasing the number offracture sites will decrease growth.

To achieve better fracture growth potential, single fracture sites are needed. In field application of multiple fractures in deviated wells, perforating one meter of the wellbore prior to a fracture job has produced good results. Although this approach is effective in providing sufficient width in a main fracture
to prevent early screenout, it does not address potential inflow from the matrix into the cased and
cemented wellbore. Adding perforations along the length after all fracturing is one option, but obtaining any type of cleanup or breakdown of these added perfs can only be accomplished with a straddle
packer.
AbrasivelErosive Perforating

Perforations may also be cut through the casing and rock with abrasive laden f l ~ i d sor~ fluid
' ~ ~alone
~
under very high press~re.4~
The abrasive laden fluids abrade a hole through the pipe and into the formation. The slurry is pumped
down the tubing and turned at the bottom of the tubing by a deflector and nozzle arrangement that
allows the stream to impinge directly on the casing. Holes, slots or pipe cutoff may be accomplished
with the tool by slowly moving the tubing while cutting. The size hole produced is a function of pumping time, slurry velocity (nozzle design), and pipe movement. Depth of penetration is determined by
the pressure drop across the nozzle, the size of sand grains, the hardness of the target material and

9-26

the pumping time. There is a point of diminishing returns in penetration where penetration is not
extended for a longer pumping time. Time to form a perforation is on the order of 20 minutes.
Water jet penetration of rocks has been used for several years as a drilling assistance tool, but has
also recently been used for perforating. In one such device, water at several thousand psi is channeled through a flexible steel tube which is fed out of a tool in the wellbore. The casing exit hole is
drilled by a fluid-powered downhole motor.

Pipe Cutoff Methods

There are at least five methods of cutting off either tubing or casings. These cutoff methods may be
used for pipe recovery prior to sidetracking operations or as explosive detonation to cut and shape
exit points for milling windows.
The most common pipe cutoff methods involve either explosive or chemical cutters. Explosive cutters
utilize the same explosive technology used in perforating charges. Instead of a cylindrical cone, however, the explosive and the liner is arranged in a wedge so that the explosive front of the device will
push out on all sides and sever the pipe. Although the technique is effective in most cases, the external part of the pipe is left with a flare that is often difficult to wash over during pipe recovery operations.
Chemical cutting has become one of the most common pipe cutoff methods, especially for tubing. The
special acid reacts extremely quickly and generates intense heat. It is sprayed through a nozzle
assembly at the walls of the tubing all around the cutoff tool. As the fluid contacts the steel wall, a vigorous reaction occurs and the pipe is separated smoothly without leaving an external flare.
Problems with both explosive system and chemical system are typically that only one side of the tubing is cut. Often it is necessary to pull the tubing into after the cut. In most instances, the pipe should
be held in tension during the cutting operation. Cutting on either explosive or chemical tools can be
improved by using the correct sizing of the tool and also centralizing the tool in the tubing. A further
important point on the chemical cutter is to use a tool with nozzles that have not been worn by
repeated use. When chemical cutter nozzles are new, the fluid is sprayed out in a tight regular jet
which impacts a small circular section of the inside pipe wall. As the nozzles become enlarged with
constant use, the tight stream becomes a wide spray and the fluid contact area is spread out over a
larger section of the pipe. As this section is spread, the fluids may not cut as quickly as with a new
tool.
Abrasive and mechanical tools have also been used for tubing cutoffs. The abrasive tool uses a mixture of sand and liquid jetted against the side of the pipe while the nozzle that sprays the fluids is
located. Cutting times are typically 5 to 20 minutes depending on available pump rate, nozzle size,
clearance distance and pipe size grade and thickness.
Cutting tubing with mechanical methods has seen several new tools come to the market in the last
several years. One tool which can rotate two or three blade cutters against the side of the tubing has
been shown to smoothly cut tubing into two to four minutes without having to pull tension in the string.
The last tool is a temperature or thermite tool which is relatively new on the market. Insufficient data
on field performance is available at the present time.
Questions
1. What is the difference in productivity ratio (ratio of production from a unfractured perforated completion to an unfractured open hole completion) by completing a well with 8 shots/ft with 6" penetration as compared to 4 shots per foot with 15"penetration (give both productivity ratio's).
Assume 0" phasing and no damage.

9-27

2. What is the actual production difference in question # 1 if zone height is 50 ft, open hole PI is 20
barrels/day/psi, maximum drawdown is 500 psi and the API oil gravity is 29.
3. For a gas well with an average core permeability of 30 md, what underbalance pressure is necessary during perforating to create clean perforations during underbalance perforating?

Q = 12000 MCFld
re= 1320 ft
r,= 3 in.
T = 200 F
pr = 11400 psig
fb= 0.9 ft
Z = 1.3
kd= 15 md
kd,, = 20 md
h=50ft
k,, = 300 md
rdp = 0.5 ft
G = 0.63
j~ = 0.40 CP
N = 50
4. For the following conditions, what is the skin associated with perforating? (from McLeods equations)
5. What are two well completion problems associated with expendable through tubing perforators?

6. What amount of casing collapse resistance can be expected to be lost from perforating N-80
casing at 16 spf with DP charges. Assume 60 phasing of the charges.
7. Specify the gun size and charge type for perforating through an overlap section having 5-1/2
(17 ppf, N-80), cemented in 7(32 Ib/ft, P-110) cemented in a 10-3/4 open hole in a hard sandstone. The well will be stimulated with a proppant frac after perforating.
8. Specify the gun size, phasing, and charge type for a completion in an unconsolidated sand with
9-518 casing.

References Perforating
1. Technology Review, (Schlumberger)
2. Cook, M. A.: The Science of High Explosives, Krieger Publishing, American Chemical Society,
1958.
3. Aseltine, C. L.: Flash X-Ray Analysis of the Interaction of Perforators with Different Target Materials, SPE 14322, 60th Annual Tech. Mtg., Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25, 1985.
4. Godfrey, W. K., Methven, N. E.: Casing Damage Caused by Jet Perforating, SPE 3043, Annual
Fall Meeting, Houston, October 4-7, 1970.

9-28

5. Bell, W. T., Shore, J. B.: Casing Damage from Gun Perforators, Bell, W. T., Bell, R. M.: The
Paradox of Gun Power vs. Completion Efficiency, paper presented at the 1981 Explosive Conference of IADC, June 9-11, 1981.

6. Locke, S.: An Advanced Method For Predicting the Productivity of A Perforated Well. J. Petrol.
Technol., December 1981, pp. 2481-2488.
7. Saucier, R. J., Lands, J. F.: A Laboratory Study in Stressed Formation Rocks, J. Petrol. Technot., September 1978, pp. 1347-1353.
8. McLeod, H. 0.: The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well Performance, SPE 10649, Presented at the SPE Formation Damage Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, March 24-25, 1982.
9. Hong, K. C.: Productivity of Perforated Completions in Formations With or Without Damage,
J.P.T., (Aug. 1975), pp. 1027-1038.
10. King, G. E.: The Effect of High Density Perforating on the Mechanical Crush Resistance of Casing, SPE 18843, Prod. Operat. Sym., Okla. City, March 13-14, 1989.
11, King, G. E.: Casing Crush Resistance Loss to High-Density Perforating: Casing Tests, SPE
20634, 65th Annual Tech. Conf., September 23-26, 1990.

12. Cheng, A. M.: How Perforation Shot Density Affects Gas Well Performance, World Oil (March
1988), pp. 39-42.
13. Klotz, J. A., Kruger, R. F., and Pye, D. S.: Maximum Well Productivity in Damaged Formation
Requires Deep, Clean Perforations. SPE 4792 presented at Symposium on Formation Damage,
New Orleans, Louisiana, February 7-8, 1974.
14. Bundy, T. E., Elmer, M. J.: Perforating a High Pressure Gas Well Overbalanced in Mud: Is It
Really That Bad, SPE 16894, 62nd Ann. Tech. Conf., Dallas, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
15. Bihn, G. C., Brown, S. A.: Perforation Performance in the Kuparuk River Field, SPE 14323,
60th Ann. Tech. Conf., Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25, 1985.

16. Harris, M. H.: The Effects of Perforating on Well Productivity, J. Petrol. Technol., April 1966,
pp. 518-528.
17. Bell, W. T.: Perforating Techniques for Maximizing Well Productivity, SPE 10033, Int. Mtg. Pet.
Eng., Beijing, March 18-26, 1982.
18. Bell, W. T.: Perforating Underbalanced-Evolving Techniques, JPT (Oct. 1984), pp. 1653-1662.
19. King, G. E., Anderson, A. R., Bingham, M. D.: A Field Study of Underbalance Pressures Necessary to Obtain Clean Perforations Using Tubing Conveyed Perforating, J. Pet. Eng. (June
1986), pp. 662-664.
20. Colle, E.: Increase Production with Underbalance Perforation, Pet. Eng. Int. (July 1988),
pp. 39-42.
21. Young, W. S., Zaleski, T. E.: Procedural Design Considerations Associated with Tubina-Conveyed Underbalanced Perforating, SPE 13646, 1985 Calif. Reg. Mtg., Bakersfield, Makh 2729, 1985.

9-29

22. Allan, J. C., Moore, P. C., Weighill, G. T.: Experience of Perforation Under Drawdown Using
Tubing Conveyed Guns on the Beatrice Field, SPE 14012.
23. Barnes, J. A., Swafford, C. V., Snider, P. M.,: Single-Trip Tubing-Conveyed-Perforating, Production Testing, and Pressure Buildup Testing in Nonflowing Wells, SPE 18841, Prod. Oper. Symposium, Okla. City, March 13-14, 1989.
24. Kruger, R. F.: Joint Bullet and Jet Perforation Tests, API, 1956.
25. Alien, T. 0.and Warzel, H. C.: Productivity Method of Evaluating Gun Perforating, Drilling and
Production Practice API (1956), 112-125.
26. Bell, W. T., Brieger, E. F., Harrigan, J. W., Jr.: Laboratory Flow Characteristics of Gun Perforations, 4. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1972), 1095-1103.
27. Halleck, P. M.,Deo, M.: T h e Effects of Underbalance on Perforation Flow, SPE 16895, 62nd
Annual Tech. Conf., Dallas, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
28. Regalbuto, J. A., Riggs, R. S.: High Differential Pressure, Radial Flow Characteristics of Gun
Perforations, SPE 14319, 60th Annual Tech. Conf., Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25, 1985.
29. Bonomo, J. M., Young, W. S.: Analysis and Evaluation of Perforating and Perforation Cleanup
Methods, J. Pet. Tech. (March 1985), 505-510.
30. Stracke, M. L.: Success in Offshore Gravel Pack Methods, SPE 16212, Prod. Oper. Sym., Ok.
City, March 8-10, 1987.
31. Robson, M. K.: Introduction to and Benefits of Tubing Conveyed Perforating, J.P.T., February
1990, pp. 134-136.
32. Dudley, R. W.: Reperforation of North Sea Electric Submersible Pump Wells using an ESP/YTool/TCP System, SPE 16534.
33. Holloway, M. L., Wesson, D. S.: Tubing Conveyed Perforating Sucker Rod Pumping Wells,
SPE 18839, Prod. Oper. Sympos., Okla. City, March 13-14, 1989.
34. Manohar, M. M., Morris, C. W., Hill, D. D., Brunner, S.R.: Evaluating Underbalanced Perforating
Conditions, World Oil, November 1990, pp. 47-60.
35. Garcia, D. J., Paslay, P. R.: Prediction of Gun Cable Behavior, when Perforating Gas Zones
under High Reverse Pressures, Explosives Conf. of the IADC, Houston, June 9-11, 1981.
36. King, G.E.: Perforating Multiple Strings of Casing: Getting Through the Overlap Zone,
SWPSC, Lubbock, April 1989.
37. Regalbuto, J. A., Leidel, D. J., Sumner, C. R.: Perforator Performance in High Strength Casing
and Multiple Strings of Casing, API 1983 Pacific Coast Mtg., Bakersfield, Nov. 8-10.
38. Godfrey, W. K.: Effect of Jet Perforating on Bond Strength of Cement, JPT, (Nov. 1968),
pp. 1301-1306.
39. Crump, J. B., Sabins, F. L.: Guidelines for Selecting Cement that will be Perforated, SWPSC,
Lubbock, April 1989.
40. Halliburton Fracbook.

9-30

41. Pittman, F. C., Harriman, D. C., St. John, J. C.: Investigation of Abrasive-Laden-Fluid Method
For Perforation and Fracture Initiation, JPT, (May 1961), pp. 489-495.
42. McCauley, T. V.: Backsurging and Abrasive Perforating to Improve Perforation Performance,
JPT, (Oct. 1972), pp. 1207-1212.
43. The Lance Formation Penetrator Tool, a technical report of Penetrators Inc., Oct 15, 1985.

9-3 1

Chapter 10: Formation Damage Causes and

Preventions
There is an old adage that you cannot hurt a good well. It is wrong.
Formation damage is a term that may be applied many well productivity impairments, many of which
have nothing to do with a problem in the formation.p2The goal of this chapter is to explain, identify and
suggest removal methods for formation damage.
There are four questions that must be considered in formation damage investigation.
1. What is the damage?

2. Where is the damage located?

3. How much damage is present?

4. How is it affecting the productivity of the well?

The study of damage is necessarily linked to diagnostics of the damage, the topic of the next chapter.
As causes of damage are discussed, some mention will be made of ways to identify and quantify the
damage. These brief comments will be explained further in Chapter 12 the Diagnostics Chapter.
Many of the most common damage mechanisms are described in Table 10.1. This data also gives
diagnostic clues and treatment suggestions that will be advanced in the chapter on Chemical Stimulation. For purposes of description, the causes of damage are often divided into natural and completions
damage. Natural damage includes those factors that will primarily occur as a result of producing the
oil or gas. Completions damage is something that happens as a result of a completions, repair or stimulation operation. Unfortunately, some completion operations can trigger natural damage mechanisms. Eliminating or reducing the effect of natural damage is part of the completions design step.
Naturally occurring damage includes clay problems, hydrates, water formed scale, tar deposition, relative permeability problems, some emulsion formation, paraffin, asphaltenes and other hydrocarbon
deposits which impede flow. Completion oriented damage includes particle plugging by entrained particles in the injected fluids, some emulsions, wettability changes, acid reaction, acid by-products, iron
precipitation, iron triggered sludges and numerous other factors. Each of these will be addressed.

Table 10.1 : Common Damage Types

Condition or Type of Damage
hydrates (ice)

migrating fines

Diagnostic Clues
gas well, interrnttent flow, near total
shutoff, followed by returnto flow in a few
minutes; produces a small amount of
water
oil well, usually only forms near mud line
in arctic regions; may also form in drilling
mud
kaolinite or fibrous illite clay or some feldspars (non clays): brine salinity changes
may trigger fines movement; sporadic
reductions in flow rate, variable production rate tests; fines in prod, emulsions
rare but possible

10-1

Remedial
glycol or alcohol in1 below hydrate forrnacon point. Insulated risers or tubing.

insulated risers

clay control for prevention; retarded acid

for removal: may need to limit rate in
extreme case

Table 10.1: Common Damage Types

Condition or Type of Damage
swelling clay

Diagnostic Clues
smectlte clay, sometimes iwte and smectite interbedded clay; permeability is sew
sitive to change in water salinity or brine

Remedial
a c m e With H C ~itIdamage
ISshallow
Frac if damage is deeper than 12"

type
water blocks

poor load fluid rec.

fill in perfs

fill in casing

particle damage

usually gas well, small pore throats,

untreated water, low pressure formation;
if very low pressure (cabout 0.2 psilft),
pore throat size doesn't matter
usually formation dependent; may
decrease production rate in severe
cases or cause long cleanup time. Most
common in formations with small pores
and microporous clays.
high skin, can inject into well at very low
rates; reperforating may show sharp
increases
high skin, difficult or impossible to inject
into well; partial fill will show skin on a
build up but injection possible at a
reduced rate; confirm with a sinker bar
on wireline
skin on buildup test, difficult to inject;
sometimes shows emulsions in oil wells;
poor mud condktioning before cement;
frequently encountered in open hole
completions and horizontalwells
may also be encountered following acid
or frac stimulations or workover fluids
where a dirty water was used or the
water was hauled or stored in a dirty tank
can reduce injection in flood projects
backflow shows particles and oil carryover return
large whole mud losses in naturally fractured formations; intermittentproduction
at low and moderate rates; infrequent
recovery of whole mud and mud fines.
Some emulsions, especially after acid
treatments; may also occur if hole is
poorly cleaned during drilling
onset of water productionafter extended
production; formation has no vertical permeability barriers and sufficient vertical
perm to allow water to move toward
drawdown
initial production of water with oil in primary, with breakthrough in flood; water
cut increases in flood
examine produced water analysis and
compare with flood water

fracture plugging

coning of water

commingled water production

waterflood breakthrough through

high permeabilityzone

micro porosity
emulsion

caused by some forms of clay; may bind

water and make high Sw readings on log
unstable emulsions, breaks on standing;
created in tubing at pressuredrop points
in piping system from pumps to choke

10-2

matrix treat with alcohol or surface tension

lowering surfactant; inject gas in gas reservoir to distance of 10 ft.

Prevention avoid or minimize water contact and lower surface tension of water.
Removal - alcohols and some surfactants

cleanout or reperf

reverse circulation or regular circulation.

HCI or HCWHF acid in matrix acid job solvent wash follow with acid in wells with oil
base mud; foam or jetting cleanups are
often useful

filter treatment fluids - use clean tanks

better cleaning of water

acid useful if damage is shallow; frac if

deep; to prevent, improve solids recovery

limit rate, some treatments may temporarily be useful; most water control products are not useful without natural
reservoir baniers
no treatment or temporary at best

high permeability zones should be

plugged deep (&loo') from producer and
injector when oil recovery from zone is
complete
no treatment necessary
no down hole treatment suggested; treat
on surface if string redesign is impractical

Table 10.1 : Common Damage Types

Condition or Type of Damage
silt stabilized emulsion

oil base mud emulsion damage

waterflood breakthroughthrough
high permeability zone

surfactant stabilized emulsion

sludge

paraffin in tubulars

paraffin in formation

paraffin after stimulation

paraffin in flow lines

Diagnostic Clues
very stable emulsion. Dartta\lvwetted
fines at interface; common aher drilling
mud dispersement or cleanup of mud or
cement fines by acid; may also occur on
polymer cleanup; common in production
form unconsolidated formations, espe
cially after acid or gravel packing operations
very common in wells drilled with oil base
mud; if treated with acid or brine before
the sulfonate emulsifiers are washed off
the cuttings by production or solvent
treatments, an emulsion from that can
lock up the well; the first one or two treatments may be short lived as more mud
and mud filtrate moves back toward the
wellbore, this is often the case in naturally fractured formations
examine produced water analysis and
compare with flood water

stable to very stable emulsion; common

to severe after acid treatment; may be
able to see the stabilized skin at the drop
interface
sludge is an emulsion that is nearly solid;
it may be triggered by acid, oil based
mud, asphaltenes, or iron compounds;
disperse the sludge in xylene and anal y e for components, particularly iron
pressure restriction in tubulars; soft to
hard mass found at press drops: color
reddish brown to black; even white or
gray possible; also frequently occurs in
tubing near surface as oil cools and
cloud point is reached; may become
increasinglya problem as field ages;
most paraffin deposits melt at c15OoF
seen as skin on test, may or may not disappear if well is shutin for several days;
cloud point of oil is near the reservoir
temperature; pressure drop may trigger
paraffin drop out
injection of a cool stimulationfluid may
precipitate paraffin in reservoir on contact; well may be clean up slowly (1 to 4
weeks) after stimulation even though
load fluid is recovered more quickly; may
see a decreasing skin if multiple buildup
tests are run
soft to hard deposits (not scale) in surface flow lines and equipment; paraftin
will mett when exposed to enough heat
(usuallv. about 15OoFis sufficient)

10-3

Remedial
downhole source of solids if possible

wash with aromatic solvent followed by

mutual solvent and acid; may require several treatments; cuttings removal is important

high permeabilityzones should be

plugged deep (&-loo') from producer and
injector when oil recovery from zone is
complete
treat on surface if temporary; use mutual
solvent or surfactantto prevent emulsion
with next acid job
prevention is best cure; use non sludging
acid systems, test with iron content
expected in well

scraping, cutting for mechanical removal;

hot oil useful if deposit is c100 ft from surface; solvent soaks on deeper deposits;
some inhibitors available for pipelines and
few problem wells; some wells require
continuous downhole treatment through
macaroni string; special bacteria are useful
treat with downhole heat generating processes if well is good producer; solvent
soaks also used; some inhibitorsavailable
to be used with a frac treatment
allow the well to clean up on its own; use
xylene preflush ahead of acid when the
problem is known to occur

mechanical or solvent removal or pigging;

inhibitors can be used

Table 10.1: Common Damage Types

Condition or Type of Damage
asphaltenes

tar

calcium carbonate scale

calcium sulfate scale

barium sulfate scale

wettability problems

relative perm problem

Diagnostic Clues
soft to hard black mass that may occur
as flakes, sludge, marblesize balls and
as a stick buildup often occurs with paraffin; precipitationis triggered by destabilization of maltene resins caused by acid
contact, outgassing, shear in pumps,
electrically charged metal surfaces, tern
perature reduction, and CO2; asphaltenes soften with increasingtemperature
(t>150F) but do not melt.
flows very slowly into perfs during prcduction of oil; usually associatedwith the
presence of a tar deposit near pay, frequently highly asphaltic; may contain
some water that is tied up as droplets or
"pockets" in the high viscosity mass
may form at any pressure drop, either in
the formation or in the tubulars; may form
very fast and can sharply limit production
especially at gravel pack interfaces or
near perfs in wells with high draw down
across the perforations; may occur more
frequently in earlier stages in some fields
when pressure drop is more severe:
there is usually no crystal pattern
usually forms at pressure drop where
induced by turbulence; more frequent
where high sulfate waters contact high
calcium waters and in COp floods; scale
is not acid soluble; may be found on outside of pumps and at intakes and gas
expulsion ports and valves in downhole;
crystals are characteristic for this scale
non reactive scale that forms at pressure
drawdowns or where outgassing occurs;
no readily apparent crystal pattem in
many deposits; may occur as radioactive
NORM scale in some areas where radicactive isotopes form in the lattice. NORM
scales are detectable with gamma ray
logging tools
frequently occurs after an acid job where
the corrosion inhibitor was not mixed in
the acid just before injection; emulsions
and reducedflow are common, particularly after inhibitor loss or oil base mud
contact; may be temporary or permanent
but most clean up slowly with time and
flow; attempts to reverse natural wettability usually are short lived; natural wettability is determined by the natural
surfactants in the produced fields
may occur when oil is injected into a gas
zone or gas is injected into an oil zone
that is above the bubble point

10-4

Remedial
treatment with aromatic (cyclic nng) solvents such as xylene or toluene; some
surfactants are also useful for dispersion
of asphaltic mass; use anti-sludge additive or xylene with acid in reservoirs with
more than 0.5% asphalt to prevent sludges

solvent soak as needed; test solvent with

sample of tar before job; heat often helps

HCI to remove and inhibitor to prevent;

inhibitor may be squeezed into the formation for longer lived protection; some HCI
jobs may trigger calcium carbonate scale
in rare cases; inhibit acid or treat with
EDTA if this is a problem

chemical converter or dissolver followed

by acid; (do not contact converter or dissolver with acid): acid is not useful by
itself; inhibitors placed by squeeze treatments are useful to prevent

scraping, water blasting or other rnechanical removal; chemical treatment is usually

not possible if scale occurs as nearly pure
(>go%) deposit or as thick (>1/4", 6 rnm)
deposits in pipes. Can be prevented by
inhibitors

treat with mutual solvent wash over the

pay, displace and soak

treat with high API gravity solvent such as

condensate or xylene (low flash point);
squeeze and produce back

Table 10.1: Common Damage Types

Condition or Type of Damage
retrograde condensate

tubing problem

~~

salt

bacterial infestation

poor perforations

unstable formation

~~

Diagnostic Clues
a Special case of relative Permeability
effect; a condensate (liquid phase) that
forms from a rich gas; if the condensate
forms in the tubing or casing, heading
may occur; if condensate forms in the
formation -creation of another phase will
reduce permeability to gas; usually
occurs near wellbore as pressure drops
near the wellbore
well refuses to flow although pressure is
sufficient with the expected assistance
from dissolved gas; well may head and
die or liquid slugs may be produced if
string is too large; rate is restricted by
friction back pressure if tubing is too
small
salt precipitatesas a white mass in the
tubulars or in the formation; usually associated with a cooling of super saturated
water but may also be triggered by a
pressuredrop: may be seen early in the
lives of some wells and becomes less of
a problem as water cut increases; look
for problems in formations with produced
water salinity that is near saturation
a difficult problem to predict; it is more
common in injection wells where surface
or produced water is injected, if the colony is established in the water handling
system, it can occur with injection of any
waters; when tubing is pulled, brown to
black slimy masses or an H2S odor are
indications; bacteria may cause slow
reductions in the injectivity of a whole
field; complete removal of the bacteria is
rarely possible-treatment is usually on a
remedial basis; untreated water in treatments; drillingfluid or injection water can
sour reservoirs with SRB bacteria
shows up as damage on a build up test
but cannot be cured with acid or
mechanical changes in the well; prob
lems such as screenouts of frac jobs,
high injection pressures, sand production, downhole scale occurrence, unstable emulsions, and downhole paraffin
and asphaltene deposits are common;
problems with a well that cannot be broken down or even pumped into should
always be approached by reperforating
the well
may occur in any formation that is poorly
consolidatedor that will fail under pressure; may occur with onset of water production or loss of pressure from
depletion; problems include embedment
of proppant, closing of acidizedchannels
in acid fractures, spalling of formation
into perfs or wellbore or production of
solids

10-5

Remedial
control draWdOWnS and repressure reservoir; redesign tubing if forming in tubulars

redesign string; a velocity string that will fit

inside existing tubing may help if tubing is
too large

fresh water or weak brine wash

treat with bleach followed by HCI (do not

allow contact of bleach and HCI);more
than one treatment may be necessary;
alternative treatments are chlorine dioxide
and bactericide slugs

reperf

gravel packing, plastic consolidation, or

rate limits

Table 10.1:Common Damage Types

Condition or Type of Damage
collapsed pipe

leaks

Diagnostic Clues

Remedial

may show UP as reduced rate or destruction of lift equipment. Check with a gauge
ring on wireline or tubing. Has a variety
of causes including severe corrosion,
malfunctioning perforating guns, pipe
flaws and wear of tubulars from drilling or
lift system. Most common causes are
earth shift loads caused by subsidence
of producing formations with fluid and
sand withdrawals, active faults, and formation movements near salt zones.
sudden changes in GOR, WOR, pressure, or chemical analysis of water

If caused by earth Shin torces, use heavier

pipe or multiple strings. Liners, cement,

and patches used for repair.

repair;consider corrosion control program

Clays
Clay primarily occurs in sandstones. Although some exceptions are known, most carbonates do not
have reactive clay in significant amounts.
The materials classified as clays have a common size range, normally less than five microns, but may
have various chemical compositions, different reactivity to pore fluids and many physical arrangements. The presence of clay does not necessarily mean that there will be a problem with clay during
production or treating of the well. To be a problem, the clay must be in the larger pores of the reservoir
in large quantity and react in a detrimental manner with the fluid flowing through the pores. If the clay
occurs only in the smallest pores or a part of the matrix, it will not be a problem, regardless of its reactivity.
Table 10.2 shows approximate major component analysis as well as surface area exposed per unit
weight of quartz and common authigenic clays3 It is this vast surface area-to-mass ratio that makes
the clays so important; they may be involved in literally hundreds of adsorptions, absorptions and
chemical reactions. Adsorption describes a process that is a coating on a surface that does not penetrate, like paint on a non porous wall. The paint does not significantly increase the volume of the wall,
although it bonds very tightly to the wall. Absorption is filling the pores without adhering to the surface,
like water in a sponge. Just like wetting a dry sponge, as water is admitted into the sponge, the
sponge swells. An illustration of surface area is needed to understand its overwhelming effect on a
chemical reaction. The weight of a 2"x 4" wood block is roughly similar to the same basic cellulose in
a typical big city Sunday newspaper. The surface area of the wood block may be about 1 square foot
and the surface area of the Sunday paper may be over 1000 square feet. Now, touch a lighted match
to each and see the difference in reactivity! Although the reaction of water on clays is indeed different
from the pyroactivity of paper, any reaction of the water and the clay will proceed much faster on clay
with a very large surface area.

Table 10.2

Particle

Quartz
Kaolinite
Chlorite
lllite
(Smectite or Montmorillonite)

Major Components
SI, 0
AI, Si, 0, H

Common Surface Area

0.00001 5 m2/gm

22 m2/gm
Mg, Fe, AI, Si, 0, H
60 m2/gm
K, AI, Si, 0, H
113m2/gm
Na, Mg, Ca, AI, Si, 0, H 82 m2/gm

10-6

The distinction between types of clays is more of arrangements of the atoms in a crystalline structure
than a major difference in chemical formula. The location of the clay is critical to its reactivity; if the
clay is in a pore throat as fill or as a lining; it is authigenic, that is, grown in the pore from minerals in
the connate water.4 Authigenic clays have a large amount of surface area exposed in the pore and
can be reactive. If the clay is part of the building material in the original matrix, it is detrital. Detrital
clays are usually less reactive that authigenic clays because they have less surface area in contact
with the fluids in the pore. Clay may also be a cement that holds the matrix grains together. As a
cement, it may react with some fluids such as acid and water to disaggregate the formation. If the clay
cement is shielded by a quartz overgrowth, as is common in many sandstones, the clay will not be
reactive. Only the authigenic clays, the unprotected clay cements and the few detrital clays on the
pore boundary are worth concern as potential damage mechanisms. The vast majority of detrital clays
are just not contacted by sufficient volumes of fluids. Remember, just because clay is present in the
formation, does not mean that a clay reaction will occur.
Authigenic clay minerals orient themselves as they are formed from the formation water and often create one or two favored physical forms that may be recognized from scanning electron photographs,
Figures 10.1 and 10.2. Recognition of the type of clay should not be staked entirely on an SEM analysis. Focused dispersive X-Ray analysis is much more accurate. Even after identification of the clay,
laboratory core tests are often required to see if the core is reactive with a given fluid. Just because
the clay is in the rock does not mean that it is reactive.

(Amoco Production Co.)

Figure 10.1

10-7

(Amoco Production Co.)

Figure 10.2

Common Types of Clay

The four common clays that account for most of the real and perceived clay problems are kaolinite,
smectite (formerly called montmorillonite), illite, and chlorite.

Kaolinite Kaolinite is chemically stable and will not react appreciably with HCI acid. However, it is
soluble in HCI/HF acid. Kaolinite poses potential production problems for two reasons: some forms
have been noted to have a loose attachment to the host grain and its large individual particle size can
cause blocking of pores.
Smectite (Montmorillonite)- Smectite refers to a group of clays which are water sensitive to varying
degrees. The extent of water sensitivity of these swelling clays is determined by the amount of
sodium in the composition.* Production problems with smectite may rise in two areas; water sensitivity
that may swell the clay and/or give off pieces of the clay (clay fines) and high microporosity.

10-8

Mite - lllite clays may form in several shapes and may often be found associated with the smectites in
mixed layer clay. Problems posed by the illites include high microporosity and a tendency for some
forms of the illite to break and move as particles or act as traps for other particles.

The high microporosity in the illites, like that in smectite, offers a trap for migrating particles as well as
binding water to the host.
The fibrous form of illite resembles fine hair or spider web fibers. Thick accumulation of these filaments are effective snares for micron size debris and may break and migrate. They are among the
most difficult forms of the clays to stabilize. Fortunately, illite in the fibrous form is less common than
the mixed layer occurrences of illite/mica and illite/smectite.
Chlorite - Chlorite usually has a strong attachment to the host grain and is not commonly associated
with migrating clays although it can serve as a collection point for migrating debris. Chlorite is slowly
soluble in HCI acid, but may cause problems due to high iron content if the acid does not contain a
suitable chelating or sequestering agent. If the unsequestered acid spends completely, iron can precipitate as iron hydroxide and block pores.
Water lmbibition of Clays

Clays may change volume as a fresher or more saline fluid flows through the formation. Several
authors have contributed work on clay swelling in sandstones showing either cation exchange, movement, or critical salt concentration that triggers clay dispersement."1 The changes in formation permeability due to alteration of clay are due to the amount, location, and type of clay minerals within the
formation. The total quantity of clay inside the formation is a misleading indication of potential
changes to permeability. It is the arrangement of the clay, its chemical state at the moment of contact,
and the location of the clay with respect to the flowing fluids that are responsible for the changes. Predicting the response of a clay to water flow is almost impossible without testing. However, smectite is
reactive a majority of the time when it occurs as an authigenic clay. When smectite is known to exist in
a formation, a 3 to 5% KCI (potassium chloride brine) is usually a good choice for a completion or kill
fluid until the reactivity of the core can be tested. The large pores are not important since they dominate the flow contribution to the permeability.
Clay Swelling

Clays swell by two established mechanisms: crystal adsorption of water and osmotic swelling. In crystal adsorption, all clays absorb some water, including illite and kaolinite. However, this highly ordered
crystalline water is held tightly to the clay surface, like adsorption. Osmotic swelling occurs as a result
of a concentration imbalance between ions held at the exchange sites on the clays and the ions of the
contacting water. When the ionic concentration of the interlayer region between the clay platelets is
greater than the ionic concentration in the contacting fluid, water will be drawn into the interlayer
region and the clay is swelled. The amount of swelling can be six fold in severe cases. The amount of
permeability reduction will depend on the arrangement and amount of the reactive clay in the largest
pores. Figures 10.3 and 10.4 are typical core test responses for water influenced reactions of salinity
shock (temporary change in permeability and clay swelling respectively).
Clay Dispersion

Clay is not the only material that can move in a rock. Feldspar, silt and even small grains can be rearranged by physical flow forces or by chemical or physical reactions as water or organic liquids move
through the reservoir. Groups of clay platelets can be dispersed by contact with water that has a different ionic concentration or type than the connate water if the clay is reactive. Dispersion may also be
caused by a physical reaction in which the clay surface wetting is changed by a mutual solvent or
alcohol. Dispersion is the separation of the clay platelets from each other and from the pore wall. This
can create a considerable amount of migratable fines. How much damage it does depends on whether
the fines are created and whether they can block enough large pore throats to have an effect on permeability.

10-9

i
.......i. .................................................

60

100

........................

130

-..--

6% NACI.

....

200

TOPAL FLUID FLOWED CC

Figure 10.3: Salinity shock showing no permanent formation

damage when switching brine salinity level and type.

ID0

200

aon

I00

6000

BOO

TOTAL VOLlihlE OF WATICll FWWEL) CC

Figure 10.4: Water sensitivity test on a core that is sensitive to

both brine type and brine concentration.

Producing the injected (foreign) water from the formation and reestablishing contact with connate fluids moving through the rock can help return at least some of the initial permeability of the formation.
This happens when the clay can adjust to the connate water by giving up some of its recently bound
water and shrinking. Flow of a brine through a core sometimes results in a greater stable permeability
than the initial permeability. This can be caused by dissolution of a salt in the pore or by shrinking of a
clay in the large pores. Some moving clays can even be redeposited on contact with a stable fluid.5
Use of KCI and NH CI (ammonium chloride) brines, or oil based fluids may help avoid the swelling
influenced dispersion tendencies of most clays. Dispersion caused by physical fluid movement may
not be avoided unless the fluid flow velocity is below the critical level for fines movement.
Other Clay Problems

High microporosity or a dense growth of the clay in the pore throats produces ultra small pore throats
that plug off quickly when exposed to fine solids and can sharply reduce permeability. This
microporosity is much like a second matrix forming in the larger matrix of the formation; this action
reduces the pore throat size to a fraction of original and reduces permeability. High microporosity also
readily traps water and can result in high water saturation calculations from resistivity logs. The bound

10-10

water influences the water saturation calculation without actually being able to move. Thus, some formations with a high water saturation value can actually produce water free. SEM photomicrographs of
the high microporosity created by smectite are shown in Figure 10.5. Once again, it is the large surface area of the clay that plays a deciding role.

(Courtesy of Amoco Production)

Figure 10.5: SEM view of high microporosity Smectite clay in a

pore from an Alaska core.

Paraffins and Asphaltenes

Paraffins (wax) and asphaltenes are organic solids that may deposit from a crude oil during production. Pure paraffin is white and pure asphaltenes are black. Both materials may occur mixed in the
same deposit. When asphaltene is absent, the precipitated paraffin may be straw colored, red, green,
gray or brown. When asphaltene is present, the mixture is usually black.
When a deposit is recovered from a well, it is imperative that the identity of the deposit be obtained.
The treatments for removal of paraffin and asphaltene are different, and many of the common paraffin
removing materials are not effective in removal of the asphaltene. Designing a completion for control
of asphaltene is different from that for paraffin since the deposition of asphaltene can often be prevented by avoiding fluid shear, outgassing, chemical upsets and mixing of incompatible fluid streams.
Paraffin control is based on temperature and pressure preservation, avoiding of sharp pressure drops,
and injection of inhibitors.
The quickest method of determining whether a deposit is asphalt or paraffin is to apply a small amount
of heat. Paraffin will melt, asphaltenes will soften slightly but will not melt completely. Asphaltenes
also usually sink in fresh water while paraffin flakes float (mixtures may do either!).
Paraffins are the simplest of the hydrocarbons. They are composed of only carbon and hydrogen
atoms and the carbons occur as an unbranched chain. Paraffin chain length associated with formation
of solid wax deposits begin at 16 or 18 carbons per molecule and may have 60 or more carbons. The
precipitation of paraffins is triggered by the loss of pressure, loss of temperature, and/or loss of short
chain hydrocarbon compounds (light ends). The temperature at which the first solid paraffin crystal
forms from an all liquid solution is called the cloud point. Designing a completion to produce to the surface above the cloud point or modifying the cloud point through chemical methods are accepted practices to prevent paraffin deposition in the tubing.

10-11

Melting points increase as the length of the paraffin chain increases. The hardness of the solid paraffin structure also increases with molecular size. The following table lists several paraffin chain lengths
and their melting points. Impurities may cause the melting point of field samples to vary slightly.

Table 10.3

Number of
Carbon Atoms

Melting Point
F

16
17

64

18
20

72
82
00

25
32
42
49
60

129
158
181
196
211

Paraffins may form anywhere in the producing system when the conditions became favorable for precipitation.12-16Paraffins are normally found in the tubing near the surface where the temperature and
pressure drops are highest. In cases such as nearly pressure-depleted reservoirs or in formations
which have experienced dry gas cycling (which removes the light hydrocarbon ends), the paraffins can
form at the perforations or in the formation. Paraffin may also be precipitated by injection of a cool
fluid. Although not generally considered, this cause may be the reason for slow cleanup of many
wells after a stimulation.
Paraffins normally form by nucleation. A seed crystal of paraffin or other solid material in the produced fluid offers a nucleus or site for rapid growth of paraffin. The longer chain molecules attach to
the nucleation sites and the crystal grows large enough to drop from the produced fluid stream. If the
crystal attaches to the tubing, further growth occurs from the paraffin in the produced crude and a
blockage will eventually occur. Most prevention techniques work on blocking the nucleation sites.
Rates of deposition of paraffin are variable. Problems with entire fields are common, but paraffin deposition of only one or two wells in a unit is also known. Individual well variances in pressure drawdown, flow rate, temperature loss and mechanical equipment may be significant enough to lead to a
problem in a borderline paraffin deposition area. The most common depositional sites for paraffin are
in the upper section of the tubing. This site is favored since pressure and temperature are both lowered as the produced fluid nears the surface. Other high incidence areas are downstream of pressure
drops such as perforations, downhole restrictions, tubing and pump intakes and wherever fluids
(especially cooler fluids) are commingled.
Asphaltenes are organic materials consisting of condensed aromatic and naphthenic ring compounds
(Figure 10.6) with molecular weights of several hundred to several thousand.1s25 They are characterized by the nitrogen, sulfur and oxygen molecules they contain and are defined as the organic part of
the oil that is not soluble in a straight chain solvent such as pentane or heptane. Asphaltenes are generally found in one of three distinctive forms: (1) a hard coal-like substance and (2) a blackened
sludge or rigid film emulsions (often triggered by iron in solution), and (3) in combination with paraffin.
In solution, they usually exist as a colloidal suspension, stabilized maltene by resins within the oil.
The colloidal particles are 30 to 65A in diameter. The volume of these resins (also called maltene resins) is the first key to the stability of the asphaltene in suspension. The actual quantity of asphaltenes
in the oil is much less important. The stability of asphaltic dispersions depends on the ratio of the
quantity of resins to the quantity of asphaltic materials. Ratios larger than 1:1 (resins to asphaltenes)
are stable, while ratios less than 1:1 are unstable and may precipitate during production. Ratios of

10-12

10+:1 are known, and no asphaltic problems are usually reported with these oils. Although asphaltene
contents of up to 60% are known, the major problems occur with oils in the about the 1% to 3%
asphaltene range.

(Stout)

Figure 10.6: Structure of the basic asphaltene building block.

Variations are the rule. Common components are N,
S, HI C and OH, among others. Bonding varies.

Asphaltene precipitation can be influenced by pressure drops, shear (turbulence), acids, solution CO2
(lowers the pH), outgassing of CO2 and other gasses (turbulence), injected condensate, gas, cornmingling with other (incompatible) oils, and charged metal surfaces.2G32Anything that takes away the
resins or breaks the stability of the micelle will lead to a precipitation of asphaltene.

Emulsions
Emulsions are combinations of two or more immiscible fluids (including gas) that will not molecularly
disperse into each other.3s44 Emulsions are composed of an outside phase (also called nondispersed
or continuous) and an inside phase (also called dispersed or discontinuous). The inside phase are
droplets suspended in the outer phase, Figure 10.7. Almost all emulsions found in the field are produced by addition of some form of energy that produces mixing. Most emulsions break rapidly when
the source of energy is removed. The breaking mechanism of these unstable emulsions is by droplet
contact and growth, and then by fluid density separation. As the droplets draw near and touch, the
surface film around the drop may thin and rupture, forming large drops in a process called coalescence. The larger droplets settle rapidly due to density differences between the liquids forming separate layers. Only a portion of the drops that touch will coalesce. When only a few droplet contacts lead
to coalescence, the emulsion is stable.

oil-in-wa ter

water-in-oil

Figure 10.7: Representation of the two types of all liquid emulsions: water-in-oil (oil external) and oil-in-water (water external). Volumes of the inner or the dispersed
phase may vary from 0 to over 70%. Emulsions are stabilized by presence of
solids at the interface.

10-13

The shared surface of two immiscible substances is the interface. Emulsification, wetting and foaming
are affected by what goes on at this interface. The interface is characterized by a film that is the true
boundary between the inner part of the emulsion, the droplet, and the outer or continuous phase. The
film (Figure 10.8) surrounding each droplet of the internal dispersed phase, especially in the bubble
interference region of from 50% to 74% internal phase volume is probably the most important reason
for stability of oil field emulsions. The toughness of this film keeps the droplets from directly touching
and coalescing into larger drops. The film is the interface boundary and may have an electrical charge
on each side (charge double layer). Emulsion properties are affected by the type of film.
Schematic of the surface surrounding a droplet of dispersed f l u i d i n a
continuous f l u i d .

continuous f l u i d or outter f l u i d
rounded surface i s the smallest
\area
minimizes energy.

inner f l u i d

Figure 10.8: Schematic of the surface surrounding a droplet of dispersed

fluid in a continuous phase fluid. The surface of the film is a
high energy environment where natural surfactants congregate. The droplets will be rounded as the drop forms the lowest
energy shape. Small areas between fluids may be filled by a
third phase such as oil in a water-gas foam.

The ratio of the total volume of the droplets of the dispersed phase to the external or continuous
phase is known as the phase ratio. This ratio influences the behavior and properties of the emulsion to
a very significant extent. Alteration of the phase ratio can lead to making the emulsion more stable or
breaking the emulsion. When the internal phase is less than about 30% by volume, Figure 10.9, (low
phase ratio), the drops do not interfere with each other and the properties of the whole system (including the apparent viscosity) are determined by the continuous phase. As the amount of dispersed
phase is increased, the droplets begin to collide more frequently, and droplet interference begins. This
causes an increase in the viscosity of the emulsion. This viscosity increase continues until the dispersed phase volume is about 52% (the volume ratio of uniform spheres packed in a cubic array). At a
dispersed phase volume of 74%, the droplets are so closely packed (Figure 10.9) that they can no
longer be spheres unless they are multisized (polydispersed). Viscosity of the emulsion increases rapidly at this point because of the energy required to overcome the resistance of the droplets moving
past each other when the liquid must flow.

Most emulsions will separate quickly due to fluid density difference when the energy source that
caused mixing is removed. If separation does not occur, there is a stabilizing force acting to keep the
fluids emulsified. The most common stabilizing forces are modification of the surface film strength at
the interface by chemical reaction, precipitation or addition of partially wetted fine particles, by electric
charge or by high viscosity of the components or the resultant viscosity. They may act singly or in
combination. Natural surfactants help stabilize emulsions by stiffening the film around the droplet or
by partially wetting very small solid particles. The natural surfactants are present in many waters and
most crude oils. They may be of several chemical formulas and may be bacterially created or occur as
part of the oil generation process. Like other surfactants, they have an oil soluble end and a water soluble end (usually possessing a small electric charge) and congregate at the interface of the water and
oil. Micron size solids in the liquid may stabilize the emulsion by increasing the toughness of the film
or acting as the emulsifier by binding droplets of the dispersed liquid with electrical charge. Almost
any solid can be a stabilizing agent if it is small enough. For a solid to be effective in stabilizing an
emulsion, it must be present at the interface of the drop and the continuous phase.
The more common solid materials found stabilizing emulsions are:

10-14

dispersed

interference

deformation

unstable
region

viscosity

dispersed fluid saturation X

Figure 10.9: Emulsion behavior as a function of the percentage of dispersed fluid

in the emulsion. Viscosity Increases dramatically in the deformation
region since the droplets must be deformed to pass by each other.
The region above 96% is unstable and the emulsion will commonly
break or "invert" with the outer and inner fluids changing places. The
region boundaries are only valid for all droplets of the same size. A
variation in droplet size will increase stability.

Iron Sulfide

Paraffins

Sand

Silt

Salt

Shale

Clay

Asphalts

Scale

Bentonite

Resins

Metal Flakes (from pipe dope)

Cuttings

Corrosion Products

Iron Colloids

The pH is a measure of the acidity of a fluid. The pH may have an effect on ionization of compound, it
may affect valence state, or it may change how a surfactant works. pH changes can alter a demulsifier
surfactant to an emulsifier or change a scale inhibitor to an inert chemical. pH is a very important factor in treater upsets following acid backflow. Most free water knockouts and treaters will operate well
at a pH of 6 to 7, depending on individual well conditions. Following an acid treatment, the pH may
drop below 4 and emulsions may be created. Emulsions created in this manner continue until the pH
rises above 6 or 7. When a well must be acid treated and the crude is an emulsifier or a sludge former,
the wellhead may be equipped with a chemical injection port just upstream of the choke or a chemical
injection valve may be placed in a gas list mandrel at some point in the treatment string.

Dispersions
Dispersions (also called suspensions) are mixtures of a fluid, solid or gas entrained in a fluid. In some
cases, dispersions such as water in oil are emulsions. Other dispersions, including air in water are
foams. One of the most common solid-in-liquid dispersions is drilling mud. Generally speaking, dispersions are only semi-stable and will separate into phases when the energy is removed. The separation
time is, like emulsions, affected by density difference, viscosity, droplet and particle size, and presence of other stabilizing forces. When the solids are very finely divided, they tend to agglomerate or

10-15

stick together to reduce excess surface free energy. The basic difference in emulsions and dispersions is that dispersions are rapidly separated by filtering.

Foams
Foams are gas-in-liquid dispersions that can become emulsions if they are stabilized. Their behavior
is described by the same theory as emulsions with typical internal phase volumes of over 52% (the
bubble interference region). The stability of a foam is dominated by viscosity and film strength. Polymers and some soap-like surfactants stabilize foam, while some other surfactants and alcohols break
the foam. Foams that occur in diesel based solvents are caused by short chain carboxylic acids &
phenols (acidic components). Removal of the acid materials or neutralization usually stops the foaming of the oil. Foams in gas processing are usually linked to the glycol based materials and are controlled by defoamers such as TCP (tricretial phosphate), etc. Breaking crude oil foams often requires
high surface area components (physical break) that promote coalescence. Defoamer use on crude oil
foams are often unsuccessful in full scale equipment. Successful treatment of oil foam is usually
achieved by flowing the foam through a fibrous filter such as hay or cellulose. Water based foams are
usually the result of a soap like surfactant. Foams can be stabilized by polymers, viscosity, solids or
other surfactants.

Froth
A froth is a special type of emulsion which may include water, oil, gas, and solids in one mixture.
Froths are the result of very high energy mixing such as found in electric submersible pumps. The volume of gas in a froth is usually near the border of the mist region (about 95% gas). The solids in the
froth act to stabilize the froth and electrical charges are common. A forced breakdown of a stable froth
collected from an ESP pumped well in the North Sea showed 95% gas, 4% water, 1% solids and a
trace of oil. The froth survived two weeks shipping without much loss of volume. The froth was recovered after the ESP burned out from lack of fluid movement through the pump. Viscosity of froth can be
so high that the material may appear to be a very low density solid.

Wettability Problems
If a drop of a liquid is placed on the surface of another immiscible liquid, or on the surface of a solid
which it cannot dissolve, it may spread out into a thin film or it may remain in the form of a drop or a
thick lens.38 If the drop of liquid spreads out, it wets the surface. If the drop of liquid does not spread
out, it doesnt wet the surface. The surface free energy of the two phases and the interfacial tension
between them determines whether the liquid will spread or remain in a deformed drop. Wettability is
measured by the contact angle that a droplet of fluid forms on a particular surface. Examples of the
contact angle are shown in Figure 10.10. If the angle of contact, 8,is less than 90, the drop spreads
out from the initial ball shape and the surface is said to be wetted by the liquid. The smaller the angle,
the higher the wettability. If the angle is more than 90, the surface is not wetted by the liquid. Wettability can be measured with a liquid surrounded by gas or a liquid surrounded by an immiscible liquid.
Simple wetting means very little, it is the resultant effect of wetting on fluid flow that is important.

3
Water

Figure 10.10: Contact angle sketch. If the drop spreads on the surface (0
less than goo), the liquid is said to wet the surface.

10-16

In the natural state, formations may be water-wet, oil-wet, or neutral, depending both on the surface
exposed to the fluid and the natural surfactants in the fluid itself. There are some instances, such as
the Cardium reservoir in Alberta, Canada, where both oil and water wetting behavior have been
reported in different sections of the reservoir.
When a surface of a pore passage is oil wet, more of the passage is occupied by the bound oil (thicker
monomolecular layer) and less of the pore is open to flow than in a water wet pore. Naturally, in a
desire to get as much flow capacity as possible in a formation, it is desirable to change the wettability
to water wet (in most cases). Unfortunately, it is impossible to change most naturally oil wet surfaces
for very long. Wettability may be modified by preflushing the formation with a wetting surfactant or a
solvent that establishes a new coating on the face of the formation or cleans the current coating from
the formation. Regardless of the altered condition of a surface, however, the wettability will eventually
be decided by the surfactants in the produced fluid. Thus, the water wet condition of a formation following an acid job can revert to an oil wet condition after a sufficient volume of strongly oil wetting
crude is produced.
The effect of wettability on relative permeability may be seen in Figure 10.1 1. In an oil-wet formation,
for example, some connate water can be produced even at low water saturations, whereas in a waterwet formation, only very small amounts of water may flow even at saturations as high as 50-60%. This
is the cause of some cases of high water production in areas with low water saturation.

(Craig, SPE)

Figure 10.11: Water and oil wet formations and how relative
permeability is affected in each case.

Hydrates
Hydrates are mixtures of ice and other elements, principally natural gas, that may resemble a dirty ice
deposit. Unlike ice, they can form at temperatures in excess of 32F (OOC). The formation of hydrates
is normally associated with a drop in temperature or a reduction in pressure which may accompany
the production of fluids. Gas hydrates are most often found in wells that produce gas and a small
amount of water. Hydrates may also form in gas cut drilling mud, particularly when the mud is circulated near the seafloor in cold locations. Hydrate plugging of chokes and valves can be a serious
problem. Hydrate particle abrasion of equipment is also possible.
Hydrates are part of a group of substances labelled clathrates because they consist of a host molecule that forms a lattice structure to entrap a gas molecule. The host structure is water, and the gas
structure may include one or more of a number of hydrocarbon or nonhydrocarbon gases. The most
prevalent type of hydrocarbon gas associated with hydrates are C,, C2, Cs, or C4 carbon-chain components. Other materials which may form hydrates are hydrogen sulfide, H2S,and carbon dioxide,
CO2. Hydrocarbons with carbon chain links larger than C5 cannot form hydrates because of a limitation on the cage size produced by the water molecule. The amount of gas trapped in a hydrate can be
quite high. One cubic foot of hydrate may contain as much as 170 standard cubic feet (4.8 standard
cubic meters) of gas. When a hydrate melts or decomposes because of increasing temperature, a
large volume of gas is normally produced. If this occurs in a limited volume or sealed container, pres-

10-17

sures can develop that are capable of rupturing lines. A major factor that affects the hydrate formation
is the gas composition as shown in Figure 10.12. In this data, temperature and pressure regimes to
the left of the line for any particular gas can result in hydrate formation where the regime to the right
part of the line is usually safe.

Katz, mod. by Baker & Gomez)

Figure 10.12: Hydrate formation conditions for gas

containing water.

Hydrates are most common in gas wells with a small amount of water production. The quantity of
water relative to the quantity of gas production is critical. As water cut increases, many hydrate problems will disappear. Hydrates are prevented by adding a freezing point depressant such as alcohol or
glycol below the hydrate formation point. They may also be controlled by temperature preservation in
the produced fluid or elimination of severe pressure drops.

Scales
Water formed scale deposits are among the most troublesome damage problems in the oil industry.47
Scale in the oil industry is usually considered a precipitate formed from mixing incompatible waters or
upsetting the solution equilibrium of produced waters. A water that may be stable under reservoir conditions may become super saturated with an ion when the pressure is decreased (allowing CO2 outgassing) or the temperature changed. The super saturated solutions react by precipitating a
compound from solution. The deposition of scale is influenced by pressure drop, temperature, dissolved gases, flow viscosity, nucleation sites, metal type: in short, anything that upsets the solution
equilibrium.
The following scales are among the most troublesome.
Calcite

Calcite or calcium carbonate, CaC03 (Figure 10.13) is usually formed when the pressure is reduced
on waters that are rich in calcium and bicarbonate ion. The deposition can be affected by outgassing
of CO2, which raises the pH and makes the high concentrations of calcium unstable.
Although most carbonate scale will precipitate on a surface, high energy environments such as flowing water or gas evolution in water may lead to free formed granules of scale in pellet form,
Figure 10.1 4. These pellets of carbonate usually form around a nuclei of matter and grow through

10-18

(Courtesy Arnoco UK)

Figure 10.13: Layered calcium carbonate scale removed from a

sub surface safety valve in a North Sea field.

addition of layers on the outer surface. Such occurrences are usually size limited by the lifting energy
in the system; when the pellet becomes too heavy to be refluxed in the flowing fluids, it sinks to the
bottom.

Figure 10.14: Pellets of calcium carbonate scale from a high

energy, refluxing environment (flowing oil well in
East Texas Field). The pellets formed by carbonate
layering around a particle of silt.

All carbonate minerals dissolve in HCI acid, releasing carbon dioxide gas as a product. The acid reactions with some of the noncalcium carbonate scales (e.g., strontionite, SrC03, and witherite, BaC03
and the iron carbonate scales) are usually much slower than the HCI/CaC03 reaction.
Calcium Sulfate
Gypsum or Gyp may be the most frequently found sulfate scale in the oil industry.47 With a chemical
structure of CaS042H20, it shares a similar composition to a hemi-hydrate, CaS041/2H20 commonly
called Plaster of Paris or by its mineral name, Bassonite. It is also similar in formula to the evaporite
mineral anhydrite, CaS04. Calcium sulfate is often mistaken for calcium carbonate scale and an acid
test may be usually required to establish identity if a crystalline pattern is not apparent. Calcium sulfate does have a characteristic crystalline form, monoclinic prismatic, Figure 10.1 5. It may be of various colors depending on impurities and may occur as soft crystals or hard, layered deposits. Very
slow deposition may produce large crystals as shown in the example in Figure 10.16, while chemical

10-19

upsets caused by mixing of formation water with incompatible workover fluids can cause very rapid
precipitation of a mass without significant crystal structure, Figure 10.17.

(Cowan & Weintritt)

Figure 10.15: A gypsum crystal from S. Dakota. Note the
linear growth surfaces.

Figure 10.16: Slowly grown calcium sulfate crystals from a

horizontal surface line in West Texas. The
crystals formed over a ten year period.

Figure 10.17: Rapidly formed calcium sulfate from a chemical upset of

super saturated water may form a precipitate without recognlzabie crystal structure. This piece was removed from a
tubing coupling joint following an acid job that contacted a
sulfate saturated solution (a scale removal chemical).

Although downhole mixing of commingled water production (from formations or casing leaks) are often
cited as a reason for gyp formation, mixing of connate water with incompatible injection water can also
be a factor. One of the most common sources of sulfate ions is sea water used for injection or as
makeup water for stimulations or workovers. The cause of slowly developed, layered gyp scale depos-

10-20

its in tubulars and downhole equipment can be from intermittent application of sea water in formation
water that are calcium ion-rich.
Gyp has almost no solubility in water and only very minor solubility in acids. Chemicals such as caustics may convert the gyp to an acid-soluble form while tetra sodium EDTA (ethylene glycol monobutyl
ether) will dissolve it. Water-blasting tools may also be used in gyp removal, especially in thicklyencrusted deposits in the tubing.
Barium Sulfate

Barium sulfate, BaS04, Figure 10.1 8 , is a less common form of sulfate deposit, but causes extensive
problems almost any combination of barium and sulfate ions causes precipitation. It also has no significant reaction to normal solvents unless it is finely ground or the structure is interrupted with impurities. Like calcium sulfate, barium sulfate is usually thought to be a product of mixing incompatible
waters, with precipitation accelerated by pressure drop, outgassing or turbulence.

Figure 10.18: Unlike the long, regular sulfate crystals,

the barium sulfate deposit shown above
(from the North Sea) is a dense, layered
mass.

Some barium sulfate are radioactive; these are NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material)
scales. The radioactivity results from a concentration of uranium in the lattice of the scale. Buildup of
radioactive scale can be monitored by use of a gamma ray logging tool. Barium sulfate removal methods are usually mechanical. Most chemical removers have only slight reactions, especially in thick
deposits.
Care must be exercised when analyzing well debris to avoid mislabeling barite, BaS04, from drilling
mud residue as barium sulfate scale.
Strontium Sulfate

Strontium sulfate, SrS04, is a common substitute in the barium sulfate crystal lattice. Strontium scale
can be associated with radioactive scale (NORM scale). It may be more soluble than barium sulfate in
chemical remover systems.

10-21

Other Scales
Silica, iron, and other deposits may also create problems in producing or injection wells. These deposits are less common than the previously mentioned scales but can cause serious problems. The silica
scales are more frequently found in the steam injection processes. These scales are usually deposited at points of reduced pressures or temperatures where the loss of pressure leads to a cooler fluid
that may be supersaturated with silica. The chemistry of iron scaling compounds is more complex than
most of the other scales since two forms of iron, ferrous and ferric exist in the formation and, in solution, the ferrous form may be oxidized to ferric iron by contact with sufficient oxygen. Most formation
waters contain less than 100 ppm iron but this concentration may be raised substantially by corrosion
or contact of magnetite, Fe304, or hematite, Fe203, forms depending on depositional environment.
Common iron scales include iron oxides, iron sulfides and iron carbonates. These scales are slowly
soluble in HCI.

Particulate Damage
Most damage following drilling, completion workovers, or stimulation are associated with one or both
of two mechanisms: (1) fines blocking of pore throatshatural fractures or (2) clay/mineral swelling or
dispersement (migrating fines production). Fines blocking of pores is the major culprit in most cases.
The fines come from a variety of sources, most caused by poor handling, transport and storage.
Drilling Mud
Drilling muds are liquid with a large percentage of polymers, clays and other solids to add viscosity
and weight. After mud flows through the bit, it carries cuttings up the annulus. The solids in the mud
form the mud cake on the wall of a permeable formation. Mud cake damage is very shallow, except in
fractured formations. Mud filtrate damage may be shallow or deep depending on the permeability of
the formation, the efficiency of the mud in forming a tight filter cake and the reactivity of the filtrate with
minerals or clays in the pores of the formation.
Cements
Cements also have a large concentration of solid particles. The particles are stopped, like those in
mud, at the wall face, but the cement filtrate can cause clay or mineral damage in the formation due to
its high pH (e.g., pH = approximately 10-12). The best control is to use fluid loss additives.
Kill Fluids
Well control may have suspended solids. These solids block the permeability much the same as the
solids in cement or mud. Clay reactions may also be possible.
Dirty Water
Dirty water is one of the worst sources of plugging damage. The care taken to formulate a fluid that
does not damage the clays or minerals is wasted if the finished brine contains suspended solids. Filtering is required for most applications. The volume of solids required to severely reduce productivity
and permeability in an unfractured well is very small. Debris masses on the order of a few pounds are
fully capable of limiting injection into a formation with permeability of several hundred md. More
detailed information is available in the chapter on filtration.
Bacteria Problems
There are five common classes of micro organisms:
Bacteria - one cell organisms, over 1800 species identified
Algae simple plants with chlorophyll
Protozoa - single celled animals
Fungi-yeast - simple plants devoid of chlorophyll

10-22

Viruses - intercellular parasites

Although many microorganisms may be present in the unsterile world of the oilfield, there are only a
handful which produce widespread problem^.^"^^ Bacteria can be a serious problem in several operations because of what they eat and their by-products. Different types of bacteria can grow in environments of 12F to >250F, pH of 1 to 11, salinities up to 30%, and pressures to 25000 psi.
Certain strains of bacteria grow without oxygen. The most common method of general classification of
bacteria is whether they need oxygen to survive:
Aerobic bacteria - require oxygen to survive
Anaerobic bacteria - grow best in absence of oxygen (growth is inhibited by oxygen)
Facultative bacteria - can grow either way, switches metabolism to suit the environment. They
usually grow about 5 times faster in oxygen than without it.
The bacteria most troublesome to the oilfield are sulfate reducing bacteria (SRBs), slime formers, iron
bacteria, and the several aerobic forms that attack polymer in fracture fluids and secondary recovery
fluids. SRBs cause the most problems from a reservoir point of view. SRBs reduce the sulfate or
sulfite in the water to sulfide and produce hydrogen sulfide, H2S, as a byproduct. SRB biomass accumulation can lead to pitting of the steel under the colony. The hydrogen sulfide increases the corrosivity of the water and creates the possibility of blistering of carbon steels and sulfide cracking. The
byproduct of the H2S attack on steel is iron sulfide (general form is FeS). SRBs are anaerobic bacteria
with very slow growth rates where oxygen is present. SRBs occur naturally in surface waters, including sea water. Growth of the SRBs are controlled by the nutrients and temperature. Primary nutrients
are carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and dissolved iron.
Iron bacteria produce gelatinous ferric hydroxide. They obtain the iron from dissolved iron in the water.
Iron bacteria produce some corrosion, but they often cover SRB colonies and protect them from
attack. Iron bacteria are listed as aerobic bacteria, but can live in systems with only a trace of oxygen.
Slime forming bacteria are facultative and produce dense mats of high density slime that covers surfaces. Their primary detriments are protection of SRBs and pore plugging.
The bacteria that attack polymers may be a variety of the aerobic and a few of the anaerobic bacteria.
Polymer is an excellent simple carbon food that can be consumed readily and contribute to enormous
growth rates of bacteria. Prevention of polymer destruction is normally handled with biocides and tank
monitoring. Control of bacteria downhole is more difficult and involves scraping or treatments with
bleach or other oxidizer followed by acidizing, and then treatment with an effective biocide at a level at
least 1.2 times minimum kill level. Frequent rotation of biocide type is also necessary to prevent the
development of biocide resistant strains of bacteria.

Effects of Formation Damage on Production

Rate and Skin

Formation permeability damage reduces the ability of the fluids to flow through the formation toward
the wellbore. Removal of this damage requires a knowledge of what the damage is as well as where
the damage is located. The identity of this damage is required to select an acid or a solvent, and the
location is necessary for proper placement of the treatment and picking an adequate volume of the
treatment fluid. The following example problem highlights the general techniques used for damage
consideration.
Example 10.1

A well is currently producing 120 bfpd (barrels fluid per day). An examination of the well file records
shows that after the initial perforating, the well was killed with a brine that has recently shown to be
damaging to the clays in the pay zone. During the completion, 50 bbls of the brine was lost to the
150 ft perforated interval. The initial undamaged averaged permeability was 500 md, and the perme-

10-23

ability is homogeneous throughout the zone. The well is not fractured. The porosity is 25% and the
wellbore diameter is 8-112 in. The permeability now is estimated at 50 md from rate and pressured
data.
The volume of fluid lost will fill how much of the pore space?
V O ~=

(25 bbl) (5.61 ft3/bbl)

28 ft3

The volume of the fluid occupied (damaged) pore space surrounding the unfractured 8" wellbore is
described by:

where:
rd

= radius of damaged zone, ft

r,

= radius of wellbore, ft
= height of the pay, ft

h
= porosity of the pay
I$
rearranging and solving for r,

r;

r2
rd

28 ft3
(3.14) (150) (0.25)

0.59 ft

+ (4/12)2 = 0.35 ft2

7 inches

There is often confusion between depth of damage and damage radius. A damage radius, uncorrected
for wellbore, is the distance out from the centerline of the wellbore. The depth of damage, a better
term for practical calculations, is the depth of damage beyond the wellbore. The two values are different.
The 7 in. of damaging fluid penetration in this case is a depth of damage since the wellbore has been
taken into the equation.
An assumption is made in this case that the fluid leaked off evenly into the zone. By use of the damage graph in Figure 10.1 9 (from McLeod), an estimate can be obtained of the productivity of the damaged well, 0, as compared to the undamaged or ideal productivity, 0,.
From the permeability ratio of k&, = 50/500 = 0.1 and the calculated depth of damage of 1.6, the
graph yields a Q d / 0,of about 0.48. The well has about 48% of the productivity of an undamaged
completion. If the damage were removed from this well, the productivity would be:

120/0.48 = 250 bfpd

10-24

DEPTH OF

0IvIM;EO ZONE,

INCHES
(McLeod)

Figure 10.19: Effect of Damage on Well Productivity

The damage in a formation is often expressed as skin factor, S. A positive skin denotes damage and a
negative skin means that the well has been stimulated and has better productivity than a natural completion with initial reservoir permeability. The producing efficiency (mod. from McLeod) is expressed

is:
- =

Q,

In r&0.75 z- 7
In rJrW- 0.75 + S 7 + S

where:

Qo

= production rate with well damaged

= production rate from undamaged well

re

= well drainage radius

rW

= radius of wellbore

Qd

Although it may seem inaccurate to use the shortened approximation 747 + S) instead of the more
precise formula, it should be remembered that the skin value S is a fairly rough approximation itself,
generated from an interpreted plot of pressure versus time.
In the previous example of & = 250, the skin would be S =3.6.

10-25

When selecting the 0, damaged production rate, to use in the calculation, the best rate to use is a
stable rate measured at about the same time period as when the skin was measured. Two very common mistakes are typical when productivity and skin are discussed:
1 Skin damage is often rate sensitive in formations with moveable fines, moveable grains, retrograde condensate or with some deposit forming conditions that respond to flow rate and accompanying pressure drop.
~

2. Skin damage may change with time, either improving during cleanup or worsening during chemical imbalances or upsets.
When the volume of the pore space surrounding the wellbore can be described by a right cylinder,
Figure 10.20, that has been modified to account for the porosity, the following equation is used to calculate the skin factor for drilling and cement damage.

(McLeod, JPT, Jan. 1983)

Figure 10.20: A cylinder of damage surrounding a perforation.

s=

In

fd/f,(

(kdk,)

- 1)

where:
k,
kd

= undamaged permeability

rd

= outside radius of zone of permeability damage

r,

= radius of wellbore

= damaged permeability

In a perforated completion, the damage from small volumes of damaging fluids may extend only a
fraction of an inch to a few inches into the formation. This damage will surround the perforations as
illustrated in the data of Figure 10.21. In this case, the damage equation can be modified to:

10-26

Llnrrr Dirtonce, Incher

(Saucier & Lands, JPT, SPE 6758)

Figure 10.21: Results of testing of perforators with confining

pressure showed that perforations are surrounded
with damaged rock.

= height of perforated interval, ft

= number of perforations in entire interval
= length of perf tunnel, ft
= radius of damage around perf, ft
= radius of perf tunnel, ft

= undamaged permeability, md
= perm of damaged zone around perf, md

The problem with both of the proceeding equations is in accurately determining the radius of damage
and the permeability of the damaged zones. Typical damage depths on zones may range from a fraction of an inch (face damage) to several feet in the case of filtrate/clay interactions. Face damage is
usually caused by particles in the fluid that plug the entry area of port throats. Clay damage from filtrates is usually the result of using a fresh water (no KCI or NH&I salts). The level of damage may be
minor to moderate (10% to 70% reduction) in the case of most filtrate damage; to severe (80% to
99+% reductions) in the cases of particles or a few filtrate interactions involving formations with large
amounts of smectite clay lining in the large pores. indeed, one of the biggest problems associated
with calculating the factors causing or affected by damage is the natural inhomogenieties of most formations.
Example 10.2
A pressure buildup test has provided an estimate of a skin of +15 in an oil well currently flowing at the
rate of 250 BPD.The perforations are adequate and undamaged. Estimate the undamaged production

from the well.

10-27

Q,

( Qd ( QdQ,) )

25010.32 = 780 bpd

Example 10.3
When the productivity is known from experience with the well, the skin factor can be calculated. Using
the first problem data (Example 10.1):

S
As a check on the Q d / Q,

/n(7/4) (500/50-1)= 5

aDDroximation offered earlier and using the data from Example 10.1:
-' d= -

Q,

7
7+5

0.58

From the rates in the example (originally from Figure 10.1):

'Q',

120
250

- = - I

0.48

Using Production History Curves to Assess Damage

The production history curve is one of the most common tools that can be used to assess damage.
When a workover or some other occurrence changes the production of a well, the productivity and
skins can be estimated from the charts.
Example 10.4
In the curve of Figure 10.22, calculate the productivity at 250 days and estimate the skin factor.
By extrapolating the undamaged curve to 250 days, a value of about 220 bopd is obtained vs. a current production of 160 bopd. The productivity is then:

and skin is:

10-28

8
c

8( v ( v ~
c v c u c8v

Producing Time (Days)

Figure 10.22: Production History of a Damaged Well

Qd
-

0.73

QO

7
7+s

7
0.73

S = --7~2.6
Workover Candidate Selection
Selectina a workover candidate based on skin damage can be a bit misleading. Remember, the best
candida6 is not the well with the highest skin, it is the well that can deliver the most improvement in
hydrocarbon rate when (and if) the damage is removed.
Example 10.5
Select the best workover candidate from two wells: well A with a skin of 100 and a damaged production of 20 BOPD, and well B with a skin of 5 and a damaged production of 400 BOPD.

Well A:

0.065

Q,

20/0.065

308 BOPD

Well B:

7
7+5

- = -

Q,

Q,

0.58

400/0.58

10-29

690 BOPD

Well B is a better candidate, even with a much lower skin. The best wells may often be the best workover candidates.

Formation Damage Questions

1. List the most probable formation damage condition or cause for low flow for each well behavior

description.
a. An oil well on rod pump lift is pulled after the rods seize. A soft black mass (not acid soluble)
is found sticking to the rods in the top 1000 ft of tubing. Below 1000 ft, the tubing and rods
are clean. The deposit quickly melts when heated but rehardens after cooling.
b. A new gas well that produces a trace of water stops flowing when the drawdown is
increased. When the well dies, surface tubing pressure drops to zero. If the well is left alone,
it comes back to initial flows within one hour. The cyclic behavior is repeated unless drawdown is reduced. A well test shows the well is undamaged.
c. A new, rich gas reservoir that has an initial reservoir pressure just over the bubble point is
tested for the first time. A step rate test shows that skin damage occurs at moderate drawdown. When pressure is reduced, the well remains damaged. The reservoir is a clean sandstone with no migrating particles.
d. A new well near the edge of a gas field shows very poor productivity on the first test. A
buildup test shows normal reservoir pressure but no skin damage.
e. An oil field on CO2 flood develops pump sticking problems as the first traces of CO2 break
through at the production wells. The cause of the sticking is a black, hard deposit. The material is not soluble in kerosene but is quickly soluble in xylene. It does not melt when heated.
f. A well is consistently producing 1500 barrels of fluid per day with a 5% water cut from a reservoir with a dissolved gas depletion mechanism. On the next daily test, the well produces
1700 barrels of fluid with a 16% water cut. The salinity of the produced water has changed
from 5000 ppm to 75,000 ppm.

References
1. Krueger, R. F.: An Overview of Formation Damage and Well Productivity in Oil Field Operations, J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1986), 131-152.
2. Porter, K.: An Overview of Formation Damage J. Pet. Tech. ( )

3. Davies, D. K.: Clay Technology and Well Stimulation, Paper presented at Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, Texas, April 20-21, 1978.

4. Wilson, M. D., Pittman, E. D.: Authigenic Clays in Sandstones: Recognition and Influence on
Reservoir Properties and Paleoenvironmental Analysis, J. Sed. Pet. vol. 47, no. 1, (March
1977).
5. Azari, M., Leimkuhler, J.: Permeability Changes Due to Invasion of Sodium and Potassium
Based Completion Brines in Berea and Casper Sandstones, SPE 17149, Formation Damage
Symposium, Bakersfield, Feb. 8-9, 1988.
6. Jones, F. 0.: Influence of Chemical Composition of Water on Clay Blocking of Permeability,
JPT, April, 1964.
7. Khilar, K. C., Fogler, S.H.: Water Sensitivity of Sandstones, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., (Feb 1983),
pp. 55-64.

10-30

8. Mungan, N.: Permeability Reduction Due to Salinity Changes, J. Can. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept.
1968), pp. 113-117.
9. Sharma, M. M., Yortsos, Y. C., Handy, L. L.: Release and Deposition of Clays in Sandstones,
SPE 13562, Intl. Symp. on Oilfield Chem., Phoenix, April 9-11, 1985.
10. Priisolm, S., Nielson, B. L., Haslund, 0: Fines Migration, Blocking, and Clay Swelling of Potential Geothermal Sandstone Reservoirs, Denmark, SPE, Formation Evaluation, June 1987,
p. 168.
11. Svetgoff, J.: Paraffin Problems Can be Resolved with Chemicals, Oil and Gas J., (Feb. 27,
1984) p. 79.
12. Cole, R. J., Jessen, F. W.: Paraffin Deposition, Oil & Gas J. (Sept. 19, 1960), pp. 87-91.
13. Burger, E. D., Perkins, T. K., Strieger, 4. H.: Studies of Wax Deposition in the Trans. Alaska
Pipeline, J. Pet. Tech (June 1981), pp. 1075-1086.
14. Addison, G. E.: Paraffin Problems and Solutions in Michigan, SPE-SPWLA Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, March 21-22, 1984.
15. Thomas, D. C.: Selection of Paraffin Control Products and Applications, SPE 17626, Intl. Mtg.
on Pet. Eng., Tianjin, China, Nov. 1-4, 1988.
16. Newberry, M. E.: Crude Oil Production and Flowline Pressure Problems, SPE 11561, 1983,
151-164.
17. Sutton, G. D., Roberts, L. D.: Paraffin Precipitation During Fracture Stimulation, J. Pet. Tech.
(Sept. 1974) 997-1 006.
18. Leontaritis, K. J.: Asphaltene Deposition: A Comprehensive Description of Problem Manifestations and Modeling Approaches, SPE 18892, 1989, 599-613.
19. Leontaritis, K. J., Mansoori, G. A.: Asphaltene Flocculation During Oil Production and Processing: A Thermodynamic Colloidal Model, SPE 16258, 1987, pp. 149-158.
20. Tuttle, Robert N.: High-Pour-Point and Asphaltic Crude Oils and Condensates, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 1983, pp. 1192-1196.

21. Stout, Charles A.: Wax and Asphaltenes Similarities and Differences, text of a presentation,
pp. 1-17.
22. Newberry, M. E., Barker, K. M.: Formation Damage Prevention Through the Control of Paraffin
and Asphaltene Deposition, SPE 13796, 1985, pp. 53-61.
23. Addison, G. E.: Identification and Treating of Downhole Organic Deposits, SPE 18894, 1989,
pp. 627-632.
24. Bunger, James W.: Chemistry of Asphaltenes - Summary of Symposium, Salt Lake City, 1979,
pp. 1028-1031.
25. Thaver, R., Nicoll, D. C., Dick, G.: Asphaltene Deposition in Production Facilities, SPE 18473,
pp. 137-146.

10-31

26. Fuhr, B. J., Klein, L. L., Komishke, B. D., Reichert, C., and Ridley, R. K.: Effects of Diluents and
Carbon Dioxide on Asphaltene Flocculation in Heavy Oil Solutions, Fourth Unitar/UNDP Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, (Paper No. 75) pp. 75-1 - 75-12.
27. Danesh, A., Krinis, D., Henderson, G. D., Peden, J. M.: Asphaltene Deposition in Miscible Gas
Flooding of Oil Reservoirs, Chem Eng Res Des, Volume 66 (July 1988), pp. 339-344.
28. Monger, T. G., Trujillo, D. E.: Organic Deposition During CO2 and Rich-Gas Flooding, SPE
18063, pp. 63-73.
29. Kawanaka, S., Park, S.J., Mansoori, G. A.: The Role of Asphaltene Deposition in EOR Gas
Flooding: A Predictive Technique, SPE/DOE 17376, pp. 617-627.
30. Monger, T. G., Fu, J. C.: The Nature of CO2-Induced Organic Deposition, SPE 16713, 1987,
pp. 147-159.
31. Pittaway, K. R., Albright, J. C., Hoover, J. W.: The Maljamar Carbon Dioxide Pilot: Review and
Results, SPE/DOE 14940, 1986, pp. 137-143.
32. Mansoori, G. A., Jiang, T. S.: Asphaltene Deposition and Its Role in EOR Miscible Gas Flooding, Chicago, pp. 75-86.
33. Hoover, John E., ed.: Remingtons Pharmaceutical Sciences, 14th Ed., 1970, Mack Publishing
Co., Easton, PA.
34. Sherman, P., ed.: Emulsion Science, Academic Press, 1968, London.
35. Lissant, K. J.: Emulsions and Emulsion Technology, Part 1, Dekker, Inc., New York, 1974.
36. Lissant, K. J., and K. G. Mayhan: A Study of Medium and High Internal Phase Ratio Water/Polymer Emulsions, J. Colloid. and Inter- Interface Science, pp. 201-208, Jan. 1973.
37. Bandbach, P. L.: T h e How and Why of Emulsions, Oil and Gas Journal, Sept. 7, 1970.
38. Hausler, R. H.: Guidelines Help Avoid, Treat Oil Field Emulsions, Oil and Gas Journal,
Sept. 4, 1978.
39. Bikerman, J. J.: Foams and Emulsions - Formation Properties and Breakdowns, Chemistry and
Physics of Interfaces - Symposium on Interfaces, June 15-16, 1964.
40. Stewart, G., and J. Cambell, and H. Wallace: The Basics of Oil and Water Emulsion Treating,
Southwest Petroleum Short Course, 197, p. 189-194.
41. Rice, C. L. and R. Whitehead: The Theory of Coagulation of Emulsions.
42. Ogino, K., and M. Onishi: Interfacial Action of Natural Surfactants in Oilmater Systems, J. Colloid and interface Sco., vol. 83, no. 1, Sept. 1981, pp. 18-25.
43. Gidley, J. L., and H. R. Hanson: Prevention of Central Terminal Upsets Related to Stimulation
and Consolidation Treatments, SPE 4551, 48th Annual Fall Mtg., Las Vegas, Sept. 30-Oct. 3,
1973.

10-32

44. Coppel, C. P.: Factors Causing Emulsion Upsets in Surface Facilities Following Acid Stimulation, J. Pet. Tech., Sept. 1975, pp. 1060-1066.
45. Moilliet, J. L. and B. Collie: Surface Activity, Van Nostrand Co., New York, 1951.
46. Adamson, A. W.: Physical Chemistry of Surfaces, lnterscience Publishers, Inc., New York,
1960.
47. Cowen, J. C., Weintritt, D. J.: Water Formed Scale Deposits, Gulf Publishing, Houston, 1976.
48.

: Radioactive Barium Sulfate Scale, SPE paper.

49. Cusack, F., Brown, D. R., Costerton, J. W., Clementz, D. M.: Field and Laboratory Studies of
MicrobiaVFines Plugging of Water Injection Wells: Mechanism, Diagnosis and Removal, USMS
Paper 014880.
50. Clementz, D. M., Patterson, D. E., Aseltine, R. J., Young, R. E.: Stimulation of Water Injection

Wells in the Los Angeles Basin by Using Sodium Hypochlorite and Mineral Acids, J. Pet. Tech.
(Sept. 1982), 2087-2096.
51. Crowe, C. W.: New Treating Technique to Remove Bacterial Residues from Water-Injection
Wells, J. Pet. Tech. (May 1968) 475-478.
52. Carlson, V., Bennett, E. O., Rowe, J. A., Jr.: Microbial Flora in a Number of Oil Field WaterInjection System, Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June 1961), 71.
53. Raleigh, J. T., Flock, D. L.: A Study of Formation Plugging with Bacteria, J. Pet. Tech. (Feb.
1965), 201-206.
54. Hancock, W. P., Hagen, D. A.: Fine Tuning Increases Statfjord B output 39%, World Oil, Jan.
1986, pp. 79-84.
55. Rooker, M.: Crude Oil Separator Foaming Problems, Southwestern Petroleum Short Course,
1983.

56. Lawton, L. L.: Foaming Crudes Require Special Separation Techniques, World Oil, November,
1981, pp. 103-105.
57. Callaghan, I. C., McKechnie, A. L., Ray, J. E., Wainwright, J. C.: Identification of Crude Oil Components Responsible for Foaming, SPEJ, April 1985, pp. 171-1 75.
58. Christopher, C.A.: Fundamentals of Emulsions, Emulsion Workshop, Calgary, Alberta, June 14,
1993.

10-33

Time

1. The pressure Increase caused by running In the hole.

2. The initial hydrostatic fluid pressure (packer set at end of measurement).

3.The initial first period flow pressure (valve opened to empty drill pipe).
4. Final flow measurement of first flow period (downhole valve closed at end of measurement).
5. The end of measurements on initial shut-In pressure.
6. Downhole valve Is opened and second flow period starts.
7. End of second flow period, start of second shut-in or buildup pressure.
8. End of final shut-in buildup pressure. The tool Is then pulled loose.
9. The hydrostatic pressure of fluids in the annulus at the end of the test.
10. The pressures measured as the tool Is pulled out of the well.

The pressures measured during the first flow period indicate the type and rate of fluid flow into the
wellbore. Sharp increases in pressures such as:

/
sharp increase indicates liquid

11-2

Chapter 11: Formation and Damage Diagnosis

When a well does not produce as expected, an analysis must be made to determine the cause. The
production sequence from static fluid in the reservoir to oil in the field gathering system is a system: if
one component is poorly designed or impaired, the well production suffers. The first part of diagnostics is determining the classic questions: what, where, and how about the damage and the second part
of diagnostics is determining what effect it has on production and how to remove the damage.

Drill Stem Test (DST)

The drill stem test or DST is described as a temporary, openhole completion in which pressures can
be measured. The minimum tool assembly consists of a packer, a downhole valve, empty drillpipe and
the downhole recorder. More complex tool arrangements, some with perforating guns, are available.
The DST is a highly useful tool for new completions before pipe is set or even for existing completions
to separately evaluate multiple zone wells or problem wells.
A number of pieces of information are available from drill stem tests, including
1 productive capacity of a formation
2. type of fluids produced

3. initial reservoir pressure

4. depletion

5. estimate of permeability

6. Presence of formation damage

7. presence of barriers or multiple zones
8. collection of fluids.

The general shape of the DST chart is a function of the pressures recorded during flow or shut-in
buildup. The events are labeled in the following curves. The graphs have been adapted from teaching
material provided by George Tew and are used with permission.

11-1

indicate liquid flow since the hydrostatic pressure of a given volume of liquid is much greater than a
similar volume of gas. The response of gas influx

is much flatter. Mixed fluid flow response will depend on relative volumes but will be dominated by liquid contribution.
The rate at which fluids flow into the wellbore when the downhole valve is opened can be estimated by
the initial and final pressure levels.

11-3

In cases of severe formation damage, fluid inflow may be small, but rapidly building BHPs may indicate good permeability. Such is the case in the following response.

When the reservoir being tested loses a significant amount of its total fluids during the test, the second
shut-in buildup pressure will be lower than the first.
first

In some cases, the second flowing bottom hole pressure cycle will reflect the lack of pressure support.
Either case is depletion.

Nodal Analysis
Many factors affect the production rate from a well: permeability, pressures, fluid characteristics, completion type, extent of stimulation, depletion, and the lift system. The diagnostic methods in this chapter are broken down into eight categories: (1) inflow performance, (2) fluid analysis, (3) transient tests,
(4) reservoir logging methods, (5) fluid movement surveys, (6) mapping, (7) completion and lift analysis, and (8) operations information. When the producing system is examined, a computer based simulator with nodal analysis capability is suggested. Nodal analysis means that each component (or node
in a system) is examined with respect to the effect it has on its neighboring components. For example;
if the
are too small
. . perforations
. .. . ..
. . or too few, the pressure drop.of. fluid flowing through the perfs will be
I

fluid inflow will be sharply curtailed by the backpressure held on the reservoir by the perforation
restriction. Any part of the system that holds an unnecessary backpressure can adversely affect the
well performance. A high surface separator pressure, a small choke setting, or tubing that is too small
holds a back pressure on the reservoir. The technology of well completion and operation is preventing
these restrictions in the initial design and removing them when they occur as the result of production
or stimulation operations. The computer based nodal analysis simulators#* are a good first step to
evaluate the near reservoir fluid flow connection, mechanical systems, and overall flow potential,
The nodal treatment are useful in spotting obvious problems, but the output from these
Figure 11.l.
simulators is, like all analysis techniques, totally dependent on input. This chapter stresses methods

11-4

of determining damage or design problems, what effect the problem has on the well and how to correct it. Nothing about damage is constant; methods of identification and removal are always changing.

(Brown & Lea, 1985)

Figure 11.1:

Possible pressure losses in a completion.

Inflow Performance
To analyze the productivity of a well, the entire inflow, lift, and surface resistance forces must be considered. Fortunately, the various components may be broken down and examined separately. Inflow
performance is the best known data set since it is used for everything from lift calculations to stimulation justifications. It is the ability of the well, in its present (or past) condition, to flow fluids through the
reservoir and into the wellbore or the lift system. The inflow performance relationship, IPR, is a curve
of well flowing pressure vs. flow rate, Figure 11.2.3The curves represent ideal and real measurements
for the rate expected from a drawdown, Figure 11.3. (Reference the Chapter on Inflow Performance
for more information.) The overlays of tubing flow charts (Figure 11.4) over the IPR curve and other
methods of plotting can often spot regions of flow instabilities (Figure 11.5), tubing size errors, lack of
perforations (Figure 11.6), and other problems. Tubing flowing pressure for a certain reservoir pressure can also have a strong effect on stable flow, Figure 11.7. Even dual completions can be evaluated with the technique, Figure 11.8.

(Patton & Abbott, 1982)

Figure 11.2:

Construction of an IPR Curve.

The sizing of tubing in a gas well is dependent not only on the flow rate expected but also on the need
to remove liquids 4E@ and the need to prevent erosion corrosion. Liquids may move into the well with

11-5

?wwcxIoI

U
-

(m?o)

(Buhidma)

Figure 11.3: Inflow performance relationship for a well

producing below the bubble point pressure.
2.00

1.m
1.500

1.w)

.ooo

m
500

(Patton & Abbott, 1981)

Figure 11.4:

Effect of tubing size on well flow rate.

the gas or may condense in the wellbore from pressure and temperature drops. The lift capacity of the
gas through any tubing is a function of the gas velocity. Turner et aLI6 presented a theoretical equation
for the minimum gas velocity, Vg, necessary to lift water and to lift condensate with a gas density of
0.0031 p.
For water removal:

vg

5.62 (67 - 0.0031 p ) 14

(0.0031 p ) 1/2

For condensate removal:

11-6

-.

mbhr*mmmDnplonktkpwNmhlm

ur at

m a ~ w m a - d F ~ m l &

m.Lpk

lay. (lor.

(lone,Schrnidt, Blais, Doty, Brill, 1987)

Figure 11.5: Examples of unstable flow regions for gas wells,

RATE I
,
.b*.~
pwr ro)ul(on by indncludlyAP compkllon in

-.

(Brown & Lea, 1985)

Figure 11.6: The effect of perforation shot density on

flow in a gravel pack completion. (Nodal
analysis simulator]

vg

4.02 (45 - 0.003 1 p)

(0.031 p) 1'2

Smith7p4reports the relationship between rate of flow, 9,and velocity, Vg, is:

4=

16.73p&Ug

ZT

where:

11-7

8 10 12 14 16 10 20 22 24

Raw &, MMdd

(Banon, PEI, May 1988)
Figure 11.7: Flow rate possible at several examples of
bottom hole flowing pressure and reservoir
pressure. Pff is flowing tubing pressure.

(Kirnrnel)

Figure 11.8: Flow response example of dual completion.

= inside diameter of tubing, in

Ug

= gas velocity
= compressibility factor
= temperature ( O F + 46), O R

Z
T

By combining the equations for minimum flow and lift, a graph of minimum flow rate to remove water
for various tubing sizes can be drawn, Figure 11.9. The danger in using a tubing size that is too small
is that the tubing may become a restriction to flow in the early years of reservoir life, Figure 11.10, and
production (and income) will be delayed.
The IPR curve changes with production, Figure 11.1 1, and events such as water breakthrough. For
any diagnostic analysis to be effective, a new IPR curve should be drawn.
When examining the equipment in this system, remember to look for the restrictions such as no-go
nipples, latch assemblies, restricted boreplugs or packers, limited entry perforating, through tubing

11-8

2w

(Smith, 1989)

Figure 11.9: Minimum rate of gas flow to lift water in various

size tubing. Assume gravity = 0.615 (air 1) at
100F.

01

-.

bm

(Kimmel)

Figure 11.10: These curves reflect that larger tubulars sustain initial flow rates for longer
time periods.

perforating, or any perforation scheme less than 4 shots per foot of net pay (less than 8 shots per foot
in a higher rate well). These restrictions behave like bottomhole chokes if they impede the flow of the
fluid in any manner. Any restriction may reduce the productivity and most are obvious.
Equations of Flow

Although usually considered to be tools of the reservoir engineer, the Darcy flow equations are also
very useful in well completion for analyzing damage and predicting flow. The equations of flow through
porous media are basically variations and adaptations of the empirically derived Darcys Law. As
originally conceived, Darcys Law described the gravity fed flow of water through sand filters. When
pumps were used to provide pressure, both gravity and pressure were considered.

11-9

2000

1600

z
(D

Cumulative recover
as percent of
original o i l i n
lac. that haa been

1200

B
U

800

r(
Iy

B
m
100

s
n
- 0

40

80

120

160

200

Flow rate. BOPD

(Vogel, 1968)

Figure 11.11: Example of a changing IPR curve with

cumulative production.

A-( -+dP
P sina)
w dw 1033

(11. I )

where:

Q
A
p
k

dp
du

= rate of flow, cc/sec

= cross sectional area of flow, cm2

= flowing fluid viscosity, cp
= permeability, Darcies
= pressure gradient, atm/cm

p
= fluid density, gram/cm3
a
= angle of inclination of bed, a>O if flow direction is updip
The conditions of flow require special derivations of Darcys Law. The various forms will be addressed
according to the conditions of flow.
For flow in a horizontal direction, the force of gravity is not a significant factor as an element of driving
pressure and the gravity term drops from the equation. Other flow parameters such as single or multiple phase flow, compressible or incompressible fluid, linear or radial flow beds in series, and the effect
of transients in flow, all affect the equations necessary for flow rate. Each factor will be considered in
turn.
For horizontal, steady state flow, the equation for linear flow is:

11-10

(11.2)
where:
AP = the pressure differential, atm
h
= length of flow path, cm
For engineering units of psi and ft, the equation is

kAP
ML

1.127A--

(1 1.3)

where:
Q
= rate in bbls/day
k
= permeability in Darcies
p
= viscosity in cp
A
=area in ft2
AP = pressure differential in psi
L
= flow path length in ft
For radial flow:

(11.4)

where:
h
= height of radial bed, cm
and, in psi and ft, the equation is:

Q(bbl/day)

3.07

h (ft) k (Darcy ) ( P, - PWf)psi

P

p (cps) l o g 2
rw

(11.5)
where:
P,

= reservoir pressure, psi

Pd

= bottomhole flowing pressure, psi

= drainage radius
= wellbore radius

re
r,

11-11

The units of re and r, must be the same.

For horizontal flow of compressible fluid, assuming isothermal expansion and using Boyles Law, the
equation for linear flow becomes:

(11.6)
where:

P,

= mean pressure =

Pe + Pwf
2

or, in psi and ft

(11-7)

In radial flow,

...
W

(11.8)

or, in psi and ft:

Q(ft3/day)

39.6

h (ft) k(Darcy) P, (psi) . (P,- Pwf) (psi)

p (cps) - Pe (psi) - InW

r

(11.9)
The problem with the radial flow equations for well completion is that pressure expansion is not perfectly isothermal at the wellbore. Some error will occur because of the heat losses. In most wells, the
IPR is established by using the radial flow equation:

(11.10)

11-12

where:

9
k
h

= flow rate, BPD

= permeability, md

= zone height, ft

= average (static) reservoir pressure, psi

pd
p

= flowing pressure at the middle of the perfs, psi

re

= viscosity of produced fluid, cp

= radius of the drainage area of the well,

r,

= radius of the wellbore, ft

f3

= crude oil volume factor

ft

The difference between P h flowing pressure at the middle of the perfs, and P , reservoir pressure, is
the drawdown. Normally, the greater the drawdown, the higher the production rate. This does not hold
true for wells with rate sensitive skins, heavily damaged wells, or wells in which the drawdown reduces
the pressure below the bubblepoint.
When a formation is damaged near the wellbore by mud, cement, or kill fluid filtrate or a wall cake is
built up, the effect of the damage on the permeability is predicted by the beds-in-series form of the
Darcy equation.

In-re

(11.11)
where:
kavs = avg perm of zone with effect of damaged layer
ke
= permeability of reservoir
kd
= permeability of damaged layer
re
= drainage radius of well
rl
= radius to inside of damage layer (usually wellbore wall)
r2
= outer radius of damaged layer
The productivity of the damaged zone is:

(11.12)
where:

11-13

Qd
Qj

= productivity of damaged zone, BPD.

= undamaged productivity, BPD.

The data for the calculations is generated from production rates at various drawdowns and is usually
in the shape of a curve, although an ideal case would produce a straight line, as seen previously in
Figure 11.3.3-5
The relationship of production rate, 9,and the drawdown is the productivity index, PI, of
the well:

(11.13)
The productivity index is valid for a well producing at steady state for a moment in time and will
slowly change because of depletion, damage, change in reservoir behavior, or a stimulation. The PI
for a new well must be viewed as an approximation only since the value may be heavily influenced by
flush production from natural fractures or thin zones with permeabilities an order of magnitude or more
higher than the rest of the matrix.
The flow equations presented thus far deal mainly with liquid flow or gas flow at laminar conditions.
When gas flow is considered, two specific problems may arise: unsteady state flow in low permeability
reservoirs and turbulent flow regimes. In unsteady state flown7the equation set forth by Rawlings and
Schellhardt,lo

C(P,- P&)

where:

= volumetric rate of flow, Mcfd

C
n
P,
Pw~

= coefficient for a specific application

= exponent for a specific application

= stabilized shut-in reservoir pressure, psia

= bottomhole flowing pressure, psia

had to be modified by C ~ l l e n d e r to:

,~~

C(f) (P:_ P ; y

where tdenoted that the coefficient Cwas actually a variable with respect to time. Variance from
Darcy flow is expressed by the n exponent (nA). What this means is that the multipoint flow test (flowfollowed by flow), was impractical for low permeability reservoirs.l19l2 When gas flow is in the turbulent region, a separate set of calculations are needed to differentiate between damage and turbulence
effect.
The F~rchheimer~
equation has been used to describe flow through porous media. In its modified
form;14

APIAL

+uVIk+BpV2

11-14

L, U and kare standard terms from the Darcy equation. The fip V 2 term is a correction for non-Darcy
flow where fi is called the inertia ~ o e f f i c i e n t ~the
~ o rturbulence factor.16 fi is classed as a rock property
and is related to the porosity and permeability in the rock17,18or in the proppant packs of hydraulic
fractures.15i19In the core, is estimated by the relationship advanced by Geertsma:18
=

1.5695 x lOV3/ (+5*5ko.5)

In fractures, for a given fracture pack permeability K, p is described by

b/(lOOQK)a

where the experimentally determined values of a and bare:

Sand Size

8-1 2

1.24

3.32

10-20
20-40
40-60

1.34
1.54
1.60

2.63
2.65
1.10

With the formula, the fi values for fracture sand proppant may be 2 to 50 times higher than predicted
by Geertsma18 for consolidated formations.lg
Gas flow through a pore follows a generalized flow pattern described in Figure 11.12a. Low velocity
flow moves the most fluid through a pore on a unit flowed per pressure drop. Increased flow velocity
results in pressure drops greater than proportional to the velocity increase.17

(a) Low d o c i t y

(cl Intermediate,

(b) Velocity
highu

Mnsition

(dl High velocity,

turbuknt

(Firoozabadi8 Katz, 1979)

Figure 11.12a:Schematic of idealized flow at various flow regimes.

Evaluations of the fit of fi to permeability were made by Firoozabadi and Katz for several log-based
formulas and both the formulas and general scatter of the data are illustrated by Figure 11.12b.

Decline Curves
The actual production performance of a well may be used to estimate the occurrence of damage and
also as one criteria to determine whether a stimulation or workover is economically warranted. The
producing rates of all measured fluids are plotted on a decline curve, Figure 11.1 3.20-25The most
common decline curve, which involves plotting periodic test or production results on a logarithmic axis
versus time on a linear scale, is a multifunction curve.21 The data available from the curve includes
estimates of reserves, well life, effects of stimulations and anomalous behavior (indicating damage).
By extrapolating the curve, estimates of future rates can be obtained. It is this extrapolation, however,
that often leads to false problems when the rate does not match the prediction. The constant per-

11-15

COAREUTKHSS OF m m
COEfRcf0
SundvdEnorOf

-Ewdm

TOStd
b g $ = m b g k + b
m = -1.101: b 23.33
m = -1.201: b 23.83
boB = m bs (W3+ b
m = 1.695: b = 17.99

Estimat, fw

bop-mlog(+)+b
m = 0.810 b 1268
bOB=mbg(XO.Q) + b

m = 0.991;

1992
bo8 = m log W) + b
m -1.414; b = 21.42
m = -1.01: b 212
bge-mlogQ + b
m = -5.lQ; b = 9.70
b

t0.W
S

tO

t 0.99

t230
23.07
t 0.87

:0.85*
t 1.01

anbar m. k ru.D la 1611.

aeaylp-

(Firoozabadi & Katz, 1979)

Figure 11.12b: B Equations and the Fit of /3 Permeability and Porosity Data

centage decline and the hyperbolic decline are the most common curve analysis. The hyperbolic
curve is criticized by some for yielding an unrealistic high reserve estimate and well lifetime because
the curve constantly flattens with time. Some authors recommending switching from the hyperbolic
curve to the constant-percentage decline as the curve flattens to a predetermined decline value.2
Formulas for rate-time, cumulative volume, and time-rate for three types of curves from Long and
Davis are listed in Figure 11.14.21Type curve matches of the decline curves such as described by Fetkovich, et al.,25 are another method of solution to predict rates.

System Pressures
The next step in the diagnostic process is to examine the various components of the lift and surface
system up to and including the separator pressure. This part of the system is dominated by friction
pressures, flow rates, fluid mixtures, and back pressures. The individual factors are:
1.

ID and length of the tubing, and efficiency of lift system.

2. Size of any restrictions or equipment in the tubing

3. Producing rate, water cut, and fluid properties

11-16

4. Wellhead or separator pressure.

1000

100

(Fetkovich et al., 1987)

Figure 11.13: Examples of production history curves.

t - a InQ'
0

-.

t-,,(:-1)

b-1.0

a1I
In(1 -dl)

(Long & Davis, JPT, July 1988)

Figure 11.14: Decline curve equations for constant percent, harmonic and
hyperbolic curves.

Any restriction to flow may cut production rate if the flow rate is near the maximum rate for the tubing.
Addition of water will usually reduce the flow rate through higher hydrostatic pressure values. High
wellhead or separator pressures also have an adverse affect on the production rate since it is a direct
backpressure on the system. Separator pressures are usually arrived at after consideration of recovery of gas liquids by use of PVT information. The flash calculations from the PVT data determine how
much of the wet gas stream will remain liquid. Although a high separator pressure is always a temptation to retain more of the gas as liquids, it must be balanced by the knowledge of what effect it will
have on the well's production since it acts as a back pressure.

11-17

After a separator pressure has been set, the wellhead pressure is backed out by adding the effects of
choke, manifold, and flowline pressure losses to arrive at the operating wellhead pressure. The losses
can be measured and summed by26

P,,

Psep+APh+APfl+APc

(11.14)

where:
Pwh
Psep
APn
APc
APh

= Pressure at the wellhead

= Pressure of the first separator
= Pressure drop through the flow lines
= Pressure drop through the choke

= Pressure drop caused by hydrostatic load

The only pressures that are easily variable after system installation are the choke setting and the separator pressure. Modification of the other pressures usually requires a workover.
If the tubing is set much higher in a well on artificial lift than the top of the perforations, the distance
from the perfs to the pump will act as a back pressure because of the hydrostatic load. The uphole
IPR may be calculated by?

P,, (at tbg shoe)

P,, (at perfs) - G,(H, - H2)

(11.15)

where:

Gf

= flowing gradient in the casing, psi/ft

HI

= distance from end of tubing to middle of perfs

H2

=tubing length, ft

The subtraction of the product of the flowing gradient times the distance to the tbg, shifts the true IPR
curve upward, Figure 11.15, by the amount of back pressure exerted by the flowing fluid.5

Fluid Analysis
Many formations undergo a reduction in oil producing capacity when water influx starts. Water influx
may decrease oil production by one of four methods: (1) taking over part of the pore space formerly
occupied by the hydrocarbon producing interval (coning), (2) establishing water in the pores of rock
(water blocking) where overall flow is diminished, (3) forming scale deposits along the subsurface
equipment, which may also limit the inflow of all fluids, and (4) requiring lift capacity. In the case of
coning and other forms of water channeling through an oil producing formation, the overall produced
fluid rate will remain the same or increase slightly (if the oil has a high viscosity). When total fluids
decrease, it is usually a sign of a waterblock or a problem with reservoir inflow (assuming lift equipment remains adequate).

In the special case of low pressure gas wells, the production may drop off completely and refuse to
flow after shut-in. In most of these wells, water builds up and fills many of the pores that were formerly
flowing gas. Many of these wells can be flowed if the water layer is removed and time allowed for the
gas to reestablish saturation through its original zone. In the case of large water losses from kill fluids

11-18

Uphole IPR example.

9. Wd

(Patton & Abbott, PEI, 1980)

Figure11.15: An example of the IPR curve shift necessary

when the pump is moved up the hole. This
example shows the effect of a 700 psi back
pressure resulting from the depth times the
flowing fluid gradient.

to low pressure gas sands, it is usually necessary to reestablish gas saturation by gas injection. In
these cases, the relative permeability to gas, Figure 11.1 6, must be raised by decreasing water saturation.

0 Water Saturation

--

100

Figure 11.16: Gasmater relative permeability curve.

Note that the permeability to one fluid
drops sharply with an increase in the saturation of the other fluid.

Waterblocks may also occur in lower pressure oil zones. The problem most frequently encountered in
oil producing formations is a lack of mobility for low pressure, viscous oils. These oils usually cannot
be displaced easily by water, but water will enter enough of the pore space by fingering to reduce the
overall flow efficiency. This situation is usually encountered in low pressure oil wells which are shut-in

11-19

with water in the wellbore and in other oil wells in which large volumes of kill water are lost to the formation due to overbalance. The water production usually remains the same while the oil rate is cut by
50% or more.
Formations that undergo production losses on a periodic basis are usually examined for paraffin or
other precipitating hydrocarbon problems. These problems are usually remedial in nature and require
regular clean-outs. If the problem is paraffin, the deposition location will depend on the pressure, the
cloud point (paraffin crystallization temperature, Figure 11.17) of the oil and the rate of cooling as the
oil is produced. Graphs of cloud point as a function of pressure and temperature can be drawn for prediction purposes, Figure 11.1 8.27

Bubble Point Pressure (psla)

(Weingarten & Wuchner, SPE, 1988)

Figure 11.17: An example of paraffin crystallization temperatures for several oils.

(Straub et al., 1989)

Figure 11.18: Illustration of a paraffin stability curve for a particular

oilfield with a severe paraffin problem.

Monitoring the components of produced fluids can often provide information that is not available from
any other source. Most reservoir fluids have a reasonably constant composition. When the oil gravity
or water composition changes radically over a short period of time, it is usually a sign of fluid entry
from another source, breakthrough of a flood, or a stimulation which has gone out of the intended
zone. This is also one of the most common verification techniques of a tubing or casing leak. The critical element in the comparison is a regular test program to monitor the composition of the produced
fluid. Location of sampling points is often of critical importance. Downhole, pressurized samples are

11-20

best when fluid is needed for analysis. Monitor wells or tracers are used to keep track of fluid movement in EOR p r o j e ~ t s . ~ ~ 1 ~ ~
Periodic analysis of the produced water is a common method to detect arrival of flood fronts, coning,
casing leaks, or crossflow from other zones. Normally, the chloride ion is monitored, but changes in
other ions such as sulfate, calcium, or barium can also be used as natural tracers or signals that
another water source is contributing to flow.
Monitoring fluid composition is also very useful on the backflow of stimulation fluids. This may also
optimize later stimulations by providing information on the amount of acid spending, emulsion production, sediment returns, and formation composition. Monitoring of solution pH on the returns after an
acid treatment can predict the onset and cessation of production upset problems with backflowed fluids at the tank battery.
Residual monitoring for phosphonates and other classes of compounds is another common analysis
for checking the scale and other inhibitor concentration.

Transient Tests
Well tests may be categorized as to the type of test or their potential use in the life of the well. These
tests depend on some type of pressure change or fluid production. The data from this testing covers
many important points about the formation, the fluid properties and the pressure remaining in the well.
Few tests are absolute stand-alone tests. Many will often give much better information if combined
with another test that will arrive at a similar result in a different manner.
Transient tests are those that measure either rate or change in pressure from a formation against
time. The analysis is based on the mathematical description of the flow system of the well. If information is known about the formation height and fluids, the data that can be generated from a transient
test includes permeability, the flow capacity of the formation and the amount of damage that the formation may have undergone during drilling, completion or natural damage during various phases of
production or injection.
The production tests covered in the Inflow Performance section) are rate versus time tests that are
normally plotted on a semi-logarithmic decline curve.3o These tests are very useful for establishing
trends such as damage following a workover or long-term production damage from natural sources.
The first test on most reservoirs is the drill stem test, or DST. This test involves running a drawdown
on the well and producing fluid up the drill pipe while recording pressure with a downhole recorder.
The information from this single test is often the only consideration whether a well is completed, yet if
the pay zone is drilled with a high overbalance, the DST may indicate no flow even though the reservoir is productive. There are enough other conditions that affect the outcome that the DST should
never be used as a stand alone test. In the minimum case, a perforating run should be made prior to
the DST to improve chances of testing the zone beyond the near wellbore mudcake damage. An
example of a DST chart and equations (from Halliburton literature) for calculating reservoir and com-

11-21

pletion information are shown in Figure 11.1 9. The plotted data is in the form of a Horner plot. The
data available from a formation test incl~de:~

I
I.

log

I.*

,.a

1
..

,.I

(T + DT)/ DT

..U

..Y

*.?a

im

:no
..U

(Halliburton)

Figure 11.19: A Horner Plot

1. Permeability: The formation permeability calculated by a formation test is the average effective

permeability to the produced fluid.

2. Wellbore Damage: Damage determination is made from the pressure fluctuations and is appar-

ent once the data is plotted.

3. Reservoir Pressure: A mathematical determination of the static reservoir pressure.

4. Depletion: If the reservoir is small enough to be affected by the volume produced by a DST, the
reservoir is very small. On larger scale flow or buildup tests, reservoir size can be confirmed.
5. Radius of Investigation: Since fluid is removed during a reservoir test, the formation will be
affected to some distance out from the wellbore. This distance can be calculated.

6. Barrier Indications: If, during the radius of investigation tests, a limit or anomaly is detected, a
barrier such as a fault or permeability pinchout is suspected.
Producing gas wells are tested with a backpressure test with the data plotted as: log(Ps,?- P d ) vs.
log q. These charts are often called deliverability curves and four points are normally collected for calculation of the curve. The test is known as the four-point backpressure test?2g33v34A graphic example, from Patton and Abbott,% of the rates and times of a four-point test along with a data plot is
shown in Figure 11.20.
Wells that require very long times to come to a stabilized flow are usually tested with a procedure
known as an isochronal test.34 This technique reduces the test time to 4-6 hours of flow and shut-in
times. The plot produced by the isochronal test is somewhat similar to the backpressure curve. The
chart, Figure 11.21, is constructed by plotting flowing bottomhole pressure after the same amount of
flow time at each rate against that rate. This means that each pressure is plotted after flowing for 12 hours at that particular rate. The well is allowed to stabilize only at one rate. The modified isochronal
uses the static pressure reached after each shut-in period to calculate Psi2 - Pwf2. The method may
be used in either gas or oil wells. From this information, parallel curves are constructed that represent
the wells deliverability after a particular flow time. A line through the stabilized rate point is the stabilized performance.

11-22

(Patton & Abbott, PEI, 1980)

Figure 11.20: Example of a conventional back pressure

test.

In a new well, if production does not match the expected rate, a pressure build-up or fall-off analysis
should be run to determine if the well has permeability damage, limited reservoir, low permeability, or
depletion. In many cases with lower than expected production, the well will have a lower permeability
than was originally thought. This is very common when permeabilities estimated from porosity or permeabilities measured to air on cleaned cores are used to establish production expectations.
A sudden reduction in the production from an established well is usually a result of damage, lift problem or other mechanical problem. Damage may be caused, as illustrated in the chapter on formation
damage, by naturally occurring phenomenon associated with production, from induced problems
caused by stimulation fluids and from numerous mechanical problems not associated with any form of
true formation damage. The build-up test will usually show the well permeability and whether or not
the formation is producing with zero or lower skin. The skin number is a reference to the ability of the
formation in the near wellbore area to flow as easily as the formation away from the wellbore. Damaged formations, those with skins greater than zero, may be blocked with removable damage such as
paraffin, scale, particles, clay damage or water blocks or unremovable damage such as insufficient
or inadequate perforations. Negative skins indicate an improved near wellbore permeability: usually
the result of fractures or acidizing.

Near wellbore permeability and damage evaluation by pressure transient analysis is a well developed
and documented tool that had its roots in the study of groundwater hydrology. Solutions to fluid flow
problems were first introduced by van Everdingen and H ~ r s twho
, ~ ~used Laplace transforms to give
analytical solutions. The first popular method treatment was introduced by H ~ r n e rIn
. ~this
~ work, a

11-23

(Patton & Abbott, PEI, 1980)

Figure 11.21: Example of rates and times from a 4 point test.

simple graphical technique allowed the calculation of average permeability, level of skin damage, and
average reservoir pressure. Type curve analysis was later introduced by Agarwal, et al.37
For the purposes of formation testing, the following conditions are expected to be present.
1. Radial flow
2. Homogeneous Formation

3. Steady-State Conditions
4. Infinite Reservoir
5. Single Phase Flow

Obviously, few, if any formations meet all the criteria. Tests on wells which do not meet the criteria
must be handled by special methods. Almost all tests are affected by wellbore storage: that volume of
the casing that must be filled or pressured up before reservoir data is meaningful.
There are two major test types: drawdown and buildup. Although the methods and formulas differ, significant information can be gathered from each test.

11-24

The generation of mathematical formulas on buildup and drawdown analysis is left to those texts specializing in transient pressure testing. The formulas presented here are only a working introduction to
the subject.
The Horner equation:

P,

162.6 qBp

Pi+- kh

tp+ A t
l o g 7

where:
P,
Pi
9

= bottomhole shut-in pressure

= initial reservoir pressure

=flow rate
= formation volume factor
p
= viscosity, cp
k
= permeability, md
h
= reservoir thickness
tp
= producing time
will yield a straight line, Figure 11.22, with a slope rn = -162.6 qBflkh. The x-axis intercept at 1 is
Pws= Pi.

The skin is:

The intercept at (fp + Af)/Af = 1 (this occurs where Af approaches infinity) is Psi= Pb and skin is:

(11.16)
For gas wells, Equation 11.22 offers a solution for skin while the slope in Equation 11.23 will yield permeability.

Pi- P i f

1,424 qu Z T ( P D + S)
=

kh

(11.17)

quZT
m- 1638kh

(11.1 8 )

where

= flow rate, MSCF/D

In the case of Eqn. 11.22 and 11.23, log P2 is plotted vs. log t for the first plot and Pw2 is plotted vs.
log for Pdvs. log ((f + Af)/Af) for buildup tests.

11-25

where:

C,
$

r,,,

=total compressibility
= porosity
= wellbore radius

with the value PI hr at At = 1 hr on the extension of the semi-log straight line.

E c o n ~ m i d e spresents
~~
a solution, including skin effect for well flowing pressure, P h of:

(11.I 9)
As shown with the Horner plot in Figure 11.22, a semilog graph of pwf vs. time will form a straight line
in later time period.
The skin effect can be obtained by rearranging Eqn. il.16 to:

1.151 Pi- Pwf - log

t- log(11.20)

Values of skin are 0 for no damage, increasingly positive value for more severe damage and negative
for an improved wellbore (includes fractures and higher permeability near the wellbore). Small negative values may be created by matrix acidizing, high density underbalance perforating or perforating
with deep charges and small, near wellbore fractures developed during the drilling operation. Larger
negative numbers are evidence of high conductivity fractures. Often, the P&frorn an extension of the
straight line to the pressure after one hour from start of flow (written PI hr) is used and Eqn. 11.3
becomes:

1.151

- log-

+ 3.23
(11.21)

From the graph of Figure 11.22, permeability is obtained from the slope of the line and skin is calculated.
In some reservoir/well configurations, problems may be encountered that make analysis difficult.
These difficulties of wellbore storage effect, transition zone behavior, and semilog straight line behavior may often be recognized from a log-log plot of pressure differential (Pi-P& vs. time as illustrated
in Figure 11.23. According to accepted practice, the wellbore storage effects are identified by a 45
line and the transition period extends about 1.5 log cycles after the end of wellbore storage.
The end of the transition zone identifies the start of the reservoir response test. The data thus identified as the straight line portion is transferred to a semilog plot of pressure vs. time and the best
straight line starting at the end of the transition period is drawn. The permeability is obtained from the

11-26

J
I
.

. ..
SimU.IQDuikWtntccilIqlO(DST.

(Holditch, Lee, Lancaster, Davis, 1983)

Figure 11.22: A Horner Plot

11ME

Figure 11.23: Log-Log Diagnostic for Infinite Acting Reservoir

slope of the straight line and the extrapolation of the straight line back to a time of one hour is used to
obtain p1 hr for Calculation of the skin.
Further stimulation of wells with large negative skin is usually not highly economic unless fracturing of
a low permeability, unfractured well is planned. In unfractured wells, there is a natural choke as the
fluid nears the near wellbore area. This inward radial flow results in convergence of fluid and interference to some extent of the fluid in the region 1-3 ft radius next to the wellbore. If a conductive fracture
can be placed in the formation without affecting unwanted production in nearby zones, productivity
can often be enhanced. In a fractured well, flow is thought to be linear from the formation into most
parts of the fracture and a large amount of damage to the formation must be done before the production rate will be significantly reduced. Ifthe damage occurs in the fracture pack, however, a small
amount of damage will significantly reduce the flow capacity of the fracture and the production from
the well. Positive skin in wells known to be fractured are usually caused from severe damage in the
proppant pack, fracturing the wrong zone, or less frequently, from severe damage to the formation
during fracture stimulation.

11-27

Reservoir Logging Methods

Electric logging is an extensive suite of evaluation techniques that can pinpoint information about the
formation, the fluids within the formation and the fluids flowing in the wellbore. Logs may be separated
into application classes. Open-hole logs are used to select pay zones and generally evaluate the type
and quality of rock through which the well has penetrated. Cased hole logging is useful for information
gathering for reentry of wells, evaluation of production, depth correlation and use in secondary and
tertiary recovery. Identification of the intervals that may contain hydrocarbons is dependent upon
proper evaluation of the formation and the formation fluids. Only the basics of log interpretation will be
mentioned here, for more detailed reading and understanding of tool operation, refer to D e ~ a n . ~ ~
A few concepts about electric line logging are in order to understand the different logs that are available.39 R, the resistivity of the formation water, is a property that affects the calculations made from
data provided by resistivity tools. These calculations affect the estimations of water and hydrocarbon
saturations and reserves. R, is normally estimated from log and downhole sample measurements
during the drilling and completion of the well. Its accuracy is very dependent on the sampling and
measuring method. The accuracy of the R, measurement is so important in calculations that require
an absolute value of RW that entire projects can be made to seem either economic or uneconomic by
the mere shift of the R, by a few percentage points. In actual practice, knowing the value of R, is less
important since the formation factors, 6 for each of the zones of flushed, invaded, and undisturbed
are equal and the saturations may be determined by equating the Fterms.

Three basic logs are required for adequate formation evaluation. One is needed to show permeable
zones, one to give resistivity of the undisturbed formation (for saturation calculations), and one to
record porosity. An example of the three tracks is shown in Figure 11.24. The log showing presence of
permeability is usually the SP (spontaneous potential) log. The resistivity logs may be deep induction
or deep lateralog, and the porosity log may be density, neutron or sonic. Where such logs are available, interpretation concerns selecting permeable zones of a porosity acceptable to hold reserves in
an area of high resistivity, indicating hydrocarbon content. Many other logs are available to help define
the myriad of special cases that formations present.
As with most logs, it is advisable to use the reading from several logs and compare the data. The identification of nonshale formations as target formations is the first step; but the second step is determining from porosity logs if there is pore space available for containing and flowing fluids. The third
requirement then uses the resistivity logs to determine if the pore space contains water or hydrocarbon.
Gamma Ray Logging

Gamma ray logs use the natural radioactivity in the formation to distinguish reservoir rocks from
shales. Gamma ray logging measures the natural gamma radiation emitted by the formations. Typically, this radioactive signature remains relatively constant during the entire life of the well and is a
convenient tool for depth correlations and for determining formation types, as well as identifying individual formations in offset wells. In general, the higher the radiation signature from the rock, the less
likely that the rock is a potential reservoir rock and the more likely that it is a shale. There are significant exceptions to this general rule, however. Many formations that contain either radioactive isotopes
or volcanic debris have a high natural radioactive signature and may be reservoir.

Acoustic or Sonic Logging

Sonic or acoustic logs measure formation porosity. Acoustic devices measure reception and characteristics of a sound wave emitted from a transmitter in the tool and received from the formation. The
sonic wave reaches one or more receivers in the tool after being transmitted. The travel time and the
amplitude of the sound wave are the primary measurements of the tool. The velocity, which is commonly reported on the log, is the inverse of the travel time.

11-28

L./Io

esistivity
0h-m

Porosity

0.

1
9900

a
1000

4
1010~

Figure 11.24: Example of a log track sketch. Shown are

SP (a permeability presence indicator),
fluid resistivity (in inspected zone), and
porosity.

Sonic tools may be of more than one type. Some sonic tools bounce the wave off the rock face. The
amplitude and travel time of the wave is recorded and measured by a spinning transducer that is both
the transmitter and receiver in the tool. This can create an image of the borehole on logging film. This
type of tool, often referred to as a sonic caliper or a televiewer, is useful for mapping physical surface
changes in the wellbore. The second type of tool, and by far the most common, is the porosity measuring tool. In any solid object, there is a linear relationship between the effective porosity and the
travel time. In relatively clean (clay free) reservoir rock, the effective porosity is the intergranular
porosity and excludes both fractures and large vugular porosity. Several factors can lessen the effect
of porosity measurement with a sonic tool. Higher pressures, even with gas, can make the sonic tool
read lower than normal porosities. For this reason, several sonic tools are generally run and compared. The response from other logs is also taken to determine which porosity log will have the greatest accuracy.
Neutron Logging

Neutron logs are another method of measuring traditional formation porosity. One popular style of the
tool is a compensated neutron log which uses a neutron source and two or more neutron detectors.
The source emits neutrons into the formation. The count rate of neutrons coming back to the tool is
generally an inverse function of porosity. The tool response may be also affected by borehole conditions. To minimize this effect, the ratio of the two detectors is often taken. In this manner, the porosity
value is much less affected by borehole conditions.
Density Logging

The density log is the third type of formation porosity measurement. Density tools utilize a gamma ray
source placed a distance from the gamma ray detector. The gamma ray count rate or reception in the
detector is inversely proportional to the rock density. Ifthe matrix density is constant, the rock density

11-29

is an inverse function of porosity. This means that as porosity increases, the gamma ray increases. It
is easier for gamma rays to find their way from the source through the rock to the detector when the
porosity is high and the obstructing density of the formation is lower.
The gamma ray density log is different from the gamma ray tool mentioned in the first paragraph of
this section. The gamma ray tool has no gamma ray source, only a detector that measures natural formation gamma ray radiation.
Another tool of a similar nature is the natural gamma ray spectroscopy tool that breaks down the natural gamma radiation into its primary radioactive components; namely, potassium, uranium, and thorium.
The density log is the only gamma ray tool that utilizes both a gamma ray source and a gamma ray
detector.
Natural Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Log
The primary use of natural gamma ray spectroscopy logs is to measure the natural radioactive source
elements of potassium, uranium, and thorium. This allows a direct observation of clay type, and in
some cases, the occurrence of fractures. The tool uses sensitive detectors that measure various
energy levels and the output requires mathematical modeling for processing.
Induced Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Log
The induced gamma ray spectroscopy log measures the elemental makeup of rock. It is probably one
of the most complex tools in the logging suite. It utilizes a pulsed neutron source that bombards the
formation with neutrons. The source is turned on and then turned off in a cycle that allows time for
measurement of gamma ray radiation returning from the rock. Information available from this type of
tool includes identity of rock matrix type, porosity, and the presence of oil without the knowledge of the
water salinity value that is required for resistivity logging.
Open-Hole Logging
The open-hole logging process deals mainly with detecting difference disturbances in the formation
caused by drilling fluids. It is the invasion of drilling fluids into the formation that marks the formation
as permeable on the SP log. The process of invasion, as was explained in the chapter on drilling the
pay, is dependent upon the compressibility and viscosity of the fluid in the pores, the pressure differential into the formation, the permeability of the formation, and the efficiency of the mud filter cake.
When the differential pressure is toward the formation, as it must be to maintain well control, the mud
presses against the permeable formation, forcing the liquid from the mud into the pores of the rock
and stranding the solid particles on the surface of the wellbore. This dehydration process forms the
mud filter cake. The liquid that enters the formation is the mud filtrate. The area of the formation adjacent to the wellbore into which the mud filtrate invades is known as the invaded zone. Invasion
involves a rapid spurt of liquid when the formation is unprotected with a filter cake and dynamic filtration while the filter cake is building. Fluid loss slows significantly after a thickness of filter cake has
been accumulated that is sufficient to radically reduce the amount of fluid loss into the formation.
Every movement of the drillstring in and out of the well scrapes some part of the mud cake from the
wellbore wall and forces the mud in the hole to reestablish the mud cake. At the same time that the
mud cake is being reformed, additional fluid is being lost to the formation.
Proceeding outward from the wall of the borehole toward the reservoir, there are three distinct zones
of the formation. In the first few inches, there is a flushed zone in which all but the irreducible hydrocarbon and connate water have been flushed from the rock by the incoming mud filtrate. A transition
zone occurs next in which the initial fluid saturation has been mixed with the mud filtrate. The final
zone is the undisturbed formation. The assumption is often made that in the flushed zone, the formation water has been entirely replaced by mud filtrate. Although this is not completely true, there may
be enough salt transfer between the waters to change the salinity of the remaining water to that very

11-30

similar to the water-based drilling mud. This shallow invasion is the area on which shallow reading
resistivity tools focus.
In extremely porous and permeable sands, the invading fluid may gravity segregate vertically as well
as progressing laterally through the rock. Low salinity filtrate (lighter weight) invading a high salinity
water sand will tend to rise toward the top of the bed. Water invading an oil sand will tend to drop to
the bottom. Successive logs that show a difference in the resistivity character of the formation from
top to bottom may be profiling this particular occurrence.
Formations such as shale and evaporite may show no mud cake at all since they have nearly zero
permeability. Shales may often spall, swell, or sluff into the wellbore, resulting in enlarged or rugose
holes. Evaporites are typically very straight-walled, unyielding formations. This character is reflected
in the caliper log track of Figure 11.25. Calipers are 3 or 4 arm tools that measure hole diameter.
Some tools may also be set to give a reading of hole roundness.

The presence of natural or completion induced fractures is an important item for design of stimulations, porosity estimates, and recovery and fluid loss concerns. A suite of logs based on the sonic log
are used for fracture identification. Most of these tools monitor an interruption or delay in the sonic
travel time in a section of the formation next to the wellbore to estimate presence and location of fract u r e ~The
. ~ reflected
~ ~
and reconstructed sonic signal from the borehole televiewer is also used for
surface fracture d e t e ~ t i o n . ~ ~

A good estimate of the total quantity of oil or gas in place may be obtained from logs provided adequate evaluations are made of the reservoir resistivity. The product of porosity and hydrocarbon saturation $(l - S,) is the fraction of the formation by volume that contains hydrocarbon. Both unknowns
can be log derived. The thickness of the producing formation (h)can be determined by logs. However,
the areal extent cannot. By matching h through several wells across a field, a relatively accurate picture of the areal extent of a formation can be tabulated. This type of information, together with porosity
and permeability relationships and the S, in all the wells, can be used to establish pay continuity.
The first step in interpretation of logs is to locate the permeable zones. This is done by scanning the
SP (or the gamma ray) log. The baseline is on the right and occasional swings to the left are the permeable areas. Baseline tracking of the log usually indicates shales, evaporites, or extremely low permeability formations. A swing to the left indicates that some invasion of mud filtrate has occurred and
permeability is evident.
Secondly, resistivity logs scan to determine which zones have high resistivity readings. A high resistivity may indicate hydrocarbons, low porosity, or very fresh water. Once the resistivity and SP logs have
identified potential zones, the porosity log is used to evaluate which sections may be hydrocarbon productive and which simply have no porosity.

11-31

Although some oil does have a very slight conductance, oils as a group are essentially nonconductive
when compared to water; thus, conductivity of a formation is proportional to: the conductivity of the
water in the pores, the amount of water in the pores, and the amount of porosity. In the simplest of
models, the oil resistivity and the resistivity of the solid rock matrix are assumed to be infinite.
The equation between resistivity and the formation is:

R,

F * Rw

(11.22)

where R, is the formation water resistivity, F i s the formation factor and R, is the measured resistivity
of the formation. Although the resistivities in the flushed, invaded and undisturbed zones are different,
the values for Fwill be the same. Since the formation has to be porous and have a water saturation to
be conductive,

(11.23)
where cp is the porosity and rn is a cementation exponent with a value of 2 to 2.1 5. rn reflects the tortuosity of the flow channels. If cp = 1 (no rock, all fluid) R, = R, When cp = 0 (solid rock) resistivity is near
infinity.
There are several resistivities important to log evaluation:
If:

R, = resistivity of rock + water

R, = resistivity of water
Rt = resistivity of rock + water + oil

Then:

R,

RdSE , where n is the saturation exponent; about 2.

(11.24)
(11.25)

Equation 11.26 can be used to calculate the water saturation of a hydrocarbon bearing zone when a
water zone of the same salinity water is adjacent. Unfortunately, few pays are this easy to judge.
A r ~ h i substituted
e~~
Eqns. 11.22, 11.23 and 11.25 to give

(11.26)
where c = 1.O for carbonates and 0.90 for sands. This is the fundamental equation for the entire logging industry.

11-32

In zones 1 and 2 of Figure 11.24, the water content and porosity are similar enough to use Eqn. 11.26,
thus

S,

Jm 0.34
=

34%

?he pore space is 34% occupied by water and 66% by some type of hydrocarbon, very likely an economically productive interval.
In zone 4, Eqn. 11.26 cannot be used because of the lack of an acceptable R, measurement. Zone 3,
a water sand, offers an opportunity to get an acceptable R, (the assumption that water salinity
changes slowly with depth is not completely valid but should be usable unless proven wrong in an
area). From Archies equation, for zone 3:

1-

R,

0.9JRJS

0.32
=

0.038 ohm-m

Zone 4 is a tight, predominately wet sand.

The log tracks in Figure 11.24 shows that only zone 1 contains commercial hydrocarbons. The logs do
not indicate whether the hydrocarbon is oil or gas. Further log analysis, perhaps with a pair of porosity
logs may be beneficial to tell the difference between gas filled and oil filled pores.
There are several methods for measuring porosity and each is affected by one or more of the formation or fluid component^.^^ It is this difference in the porosity log behavior that is useful in spotting gas
or high GOR filled porosity. For example, the density log, which actually measures the solid part of the
rock rather than porosity, is almost unaffected by gas filled porosity, the CNL (compensated neutron
log) will show a very low value for gas filled porosity, the sonic log indicates a reading in-between the
9 den. and CNL. The EPT (electromagnetic propagation tool) is almost totally unaffected by fill material in the pores. These responses are in a clean formation: presence of shale can shift the track
responses radically either way. Idealized schematics of porosity measuring tool tracks are shown in
Figure 11.26a. The EPT tool is shown in Figure 11.26b.

Formation resistivity, Rt, is assumed to be that of the undisturbed reservoir beyond any invasion of
mud filtrate. Selecting Rt, however, is often very difficult, because of the wide range of flush zone and
transition zones available in formations where permeability is not constant. No tool has been developed that can read deeply enough to get Rt under all circumstances and still maintain good vertical
resolution between the beds. In other words, the tools with a long spacing between emitter and detector will read deep but have problems distinguishing between thin beds. To fully evaluate formations
with these types of unknowns, three different resistivity curves are often run at the same time. One is
a deep investigation tool, one is a medium depth tool, and the other is a shallow looking tool. With the
three curves and the known values of S, the reading of the deepest log can be corrected for invasion
effects to provide an accurate r,value. The flush zone resistivity and the diameter of invasion may also

11-33

Response
h e n Pores

Filled

0 CNL

%EH

0 30

Q, EPT

OSL
0 30

0 30

Gas

Gas 6 011
K

Oil

Water

Figure 11.26a: Response of various porosity measuring tools to pores

filled with gas, oil and water for a low clay sandstone
with @ = 20%.
Mudcake

lnvadedm

(Oilfield Review, July 1989)

Figure 11.26b: Schematic of a Schlumberger EPT Tool. The EPT determines water filled
porosity from measurements of the formations dielectric constant and conductivity. The measurements are made on returning electromagnetic wave.
The tool measures attenuation and phase shift of the wave (below).

be estimated. The invasion estimate is extremely useful information for designing stimulations and
damage removal treatments.
There is an enormous amount of differencein the contrast between fresh water muds and salt water
muds. The value of R,f(resistivity of the mud filtrate),along with the temperature of the formation, are
measured in the hole and included in the log heading. These are the values on which many of the cal-

11-34

culations from the logs are made. Most fresh water muds have Rmfvalues of approximately 0.4 to
2 ohm-meter at surface temperatures. As the temperature and pressure conditions on the mud
change, fR
, may also change. In very shallow zones where formation waters are usually fresh, fR,
may be close to R, However, in deeper zones where the formation water salinity is usually much
higher, the values will differ widely. It is the difference in salinity that makes the transition and flushed
zones easy to spot. Drilling affects the salinity of muds, especially when salt beds are penetrated. In
these situations, saturated salt muds must be used during drilling to prevent continual dissolving and
caving of these beds. R,fvalues
of high salinity muds will be on the order of 0.1 ohm-meter or less at
surface temperature.
Depth of Invasion

The terms necessary to describe the depth of invasion, Figure 11.27, are:
Wellbore wall including
mudcake

flushed zone

I
I

,
I
,

Undlsturbed Formation
Rt, Rr. Sw

I
I
I

,I
I

I
I

Invaded Zone
(zone o f investigation),
dj

Id,,

Rmf f l u i d s

Figure 11.27: Elements of the invaded zone.

fR
,
= resistivity of the mud filtrate
R,
= resistivity of the flushed zone
S,, = water saturation of the flushed zone
Rt = resistivity of undisturbed formation
R, = resistivity of connate water
S, = water saturation of undisturbed formation
c$
= depth of invasion to outside of transition zone
Using the three resistivity curves, a log track similar to Figure 11.28, can be drawn. The logs shown in
the figure are the Lateralog 8, LL8, (a conductance measurement), a medium depth induction tool and
a deep induction tool. The LL8 has a depth of investigation of about 1 ft, the medium depth induction
tool, ILm, has a depth of investigation of about 2 ft, and the deep induction, ILd, has a depth of investigation of about 5 ft. In the tracks of Figure 11.28, the separation of the log tracks indicates that the
resistivity of the fluid 2 to 5 ft into the formation is much less than the resistivity near the wellbore. The
SP track confirms that the zone is permeable. In the permeable zone, LL8 is reading close to R,, and
ILd reads close to Rt. Because of changing conditions of saturation, neither value is exact.
The deductions3 made from the three tracks are: (1) the zone is water bearing, (2) the drilling mud is
fresher than the formation brine, (3) invasion of the mud filtrate into the zone is moderate to shallow
since the ILm reading is very close to the ILd. Also available from the log is that the formations above

11-35

Figure 11.28: Three resistivity tracks showing

effect of depth of tool investigation.

and below the zone have no permeability since no fluid invasion occurred and the SP did not indicate
permeability. In wells drilled with a salt water mud that is less resistive than the formation water, the
position of the three curves would be reversed. For a more complete treatment on logs, the reader is
referred to D e ~ a n . ~ ~

Other Logs
There are several other logs that are useful in analysis from a well completion point of view. A brief
description of the more common logs are given in the following paragraphs.
The gamma-ray log is a recording of the natural radioactivity of the formation. The log measures the
gamma-rays emitted from trace amounts of uranium, thorium, and potassium present in the rock. The
gamma-ray log is a "finger print" of the formation and is used to correlate depths of formations
between wells and as a locator for perforating depth control. Gamma-ray logs never exactly repeat the
same tracks over an interval due to variances in measurements by the tool, logging speed, and variances in gamma-ray emissions, but the tracks are almost always close enough to correlate depth.
Depth of investigation is 6 to 12 inches and the log will operate in a cased hole. A gamma-ray trace for
several formations are shown in Figure 11.29 (from D e ~ a n ~As~ seen
) . from this data, the gamma-ray
response is characteristic of the natural radioactivity of a formation, but cannot normally be used to
positively identify most formations unless other data is available or further analysis is made on the
gamma ray emissions.
The spontaneous potential or SP log is a recording of a fixed electrode at the surface and a moveable
electrode in the borehole. The fluid in the well should be a conductive mud. The log is used to detect
permeable zones.
Resistivity logs are used to measure the resistance of fluid filled formations and by the difference
between the resistance of the mud filtrate and the formation fluid, show invasion, permeability, and
presence of water.

11-36

50

100APIUnits

L
Shaly sand

Clean limestone

1 Dolomite

(Dewan)

Figure 11.29: Gamma Ray response on various formations.

Lateralogs are focused resistivity logs. Advantages are the ability to operate in very salty muds,
improved bed definition, and less interference from adjacent beds.
Porosity logs may be one of four (or more) types: Density, Neutron, EPT (electromagnetic propagation
tool) and Sonic. The tools all measure porosity but respond in different manners to the type of rock
and the composition of fluid in the pores of the rock to get the porosity value; a useful series of tools to
help identify fluid type.
Three and four arm caliper logs measure the diameter of the open-hole and the multiarm (60 + feelers) caliper tools can measure the shape of the casing. The multiarm units are most useful to monitor
high load areas for signs of collapse or buckling and have also been used to monitor casing corrosion.
The standard three arm units are usually averaging (or minimum reading) rather than independent
arm reading, thus some error may be induced in the size of the hole. Sonic calipers are also available
that can operate in large holes or detect surface fractures.
Many other logs are available and most have a use in well completion. Only the dominant logs have
been mentioned; for more information, see the referenced books and articles.
Cased Hole Logging

Generation of well information via cased hole logs has long been a standby of data collection and well
completion operations. Cased hole logs are used to evaluate flow within the casing and to gather
information on formation, annulus between the casing and the formation, the casing itself, and the
movement of fluids within the casing. Cased hole logs have always been plagued by a high degree of
uncertainty caused by the character of the borehole and formation environment. Sm01len~~
has proposed separation of the available logs into four regions of investigation. These regions, in
Figure 11.30a, involve: Region 1 is the in-casing region made up of flowing or static fluids that may be
single or multiphase and may be moving up, down or in both directions on opposite sides of the pipe;
Region 2 is the casing itself; Region 3 is the annular section between the casing and the formation;
Region 4 is the formation. Smollen further separates logging tools into their application for these four
areas. There is a certain amount of information crossover from other sources since most logging techniques respond not only to information coming from their primary region of investigation but to data

11-37

from adjacent regions as well. The listing of the logging techniques separates into primary and secondary investigations with the regions mentioned in the previous paragraph as shown in
Figure 11.30b. The primary region of investigation is designated by a 1 while the coincidental or secondary regions are designated with a ii2.49The logging techniques listed here may have different
uses as the regions change. The cement bond log, for example, is useful to determine the amount of
annular fill and the bonding between the casing and the f~rmation;~
however, it also can be used as a
casing inspection tool where the disturbances in the casing are large enough to be noticed by the
detector spacing of the tool.

(Smollen, 1987)

Figure 11.30a: Regions in cased hole investigation.

Electric Logging Tool Response

The following chart is an attempt to show where each tool will operate most efficiently. It covers the
most common form of the basic tool design.53
Logging Tool

short spacing focused tools:

microlog
microlateralog
lateralog
density
dual neutron
velocity
electromagnetic wave propaga-

resistivity
bulk density
porosity index
travel time
porosity index, form. fluid

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

no

n0

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

mineral analysis
free fluid index
borehole diam.

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

11-38

no
no

no
Yes

Region of Investigation - Key

I
Inside Casing or Tubing
II Casing or Tubing Wall
Ill Annulus Between Pipe and Formation
IV Formation
1 Primary Area of Investigationof Logging Technique
2
Secondary or IncidentalArea of Investigation
~~

(Smollen, 1987)

Figure 11.30b: The regions of primary and secondary investigation for the different types of generic
cased-hole log surveys.

11-39

The tool names were made as generic as possible. Obviously each of the wireline service companies
has its own unique nomenclature for its version.
The primary objectives of any logging program are:
1. Detect hydrocarbon bearing formations

a. determine water saturation

b. determine porosity
c. indication of permeability
d. possibility of production
2. Depth control (measured and true vertical)

3. Determine lithology (correlation with known stratigraphy)

When the continuous phase of the drilling fluid is oil, refined or crude, there is no electrical path
between the logging tool and the formation. Those tools which require an electrical circuit, such as
any resistivity device, will not produce any formation related measurement. The induction tools that
are usually scaled in resistivity are in fact measuring conductivity. By inducing an electric current
within the formation there is in turn a current generated within a measuring coil within the tool. This
measured current is then proportional to the formation conductivity. It is commonly presented as the s
reciprocal value, resistivity.
The dipmeter tools use pad mounted microconductivity circuits that define formation bedding planes.
The inclinometer section of the tool is reporting tool attitude which is related to borehole geometry.
The acoustic devices do not have sufficient amplitude to work in a gaseous media but have no problem with all oil systems. The scanning acoustic tool (BHTV or CAST) is adversely affected by emulsion
type systems where the interface between phases is too great a reflector (hence the problem with oil
emulsion muds). This tool also operates at a much higher frequency than the porosity delineating
sonic tool.
By utilization of computer processing of combinations of logging tools it is possible to obtain all of the
parameters normally measured during logging in water based fluids while in oil based drilling fluids
with very few exceptions.
Direct Borehole Investigation

The inspection of a wellbore can be accomplished with two methods, the borehole televiewer, which is
a sonic caliper that operates in a principle similar to sonar and the downhole television camera, which
is a closed circuit TV camera.

11-40

The borehole televiewer is an acoustic device that scans the surface of the wellbore or the casing by
rotating an acoustic transmitter while the tool is moved along the wellbore a ~ i s . The
~ ~ reflected
~ ~
signal is computer enhanced so that the amplitude of the reflected acoustic signal is displayed as a
reflected sound photograph of the section logged.
The borehole television camera is a closed circuit, self-contained television camera that may be either
side looking or down looking.
Formation Tester

Formation testers, often referred to as repeat formation testers or RFTs, are devices usually run on
wireline that are very useful for establishing criteria about the productivity of the formation.52 The
testers can give information concerning formation permeability, formation pressure, and they can be
used to obtain a sample of the formation fluid. The devices work by pressing a sampling nozzle,
Figure 11.31 a, into the formation by means of a setting piston that pushes against the far side of the
hole. A probe on the side of the tool penetrates the mud cake and allows fluid from the formation to be
pulled into the tool into flow chambers as the tool is activated. The two chambers, Figure 11.31 b, are
automatically activated every time the tool is set. They withdraw 10 ccs of formation fluids in each
chamber. Usually one chamber has a higher flow rate than the other such as 50 ccs per minute and
125 ccs per minute. The time to fill each of the chambers is recorded as a measurement of permeability. In one mode of operation the samples are not saved, although samples can be obtained if limited
sampling is desired. The samples taken may either be saved or discarded if repeat measurements are
needed.

The Multi-Set Tester fully opened to

contact well bore wall and take samples. If malfunctionoccurs, the Valcor
hydraulic dumpvalve automatically
releases pad assembly pressure,
a//owingthe tool to be retrieved.

(Schlumberger)

Figure 11.31a: A drawing of one type of repeat formatior

tester, RFT.

11-41

Figure 11.31b:
Formation tester schematic and
operation.
Right: diagnostic indications
from pressure chart
recording.

.:,..
.

:...
....

SHOE

'I

..*
.'
..a..

FLOW L I N E 4
PI

GAGE

;uacoNvxlnArco
SAN0

...PROBE
.
.*

CLOSED
OURING
INITIAL SET

'..

SEAL VALVE

SAMPLE
CHAMBER)

CHAMBERI

P-YIIIMkdllClYmpmpmm

(Schuitz et al.)

Fluid Movement Surveys

Production logging is the technique using special logging tools to evaluate a well after completion. The
tools used for this operation may be categorized into three general groups:
1. Measurement of formation properties through casing and/or tubing.
2. Measurement of fluid type, flow rate or fluid movement within the casing vicinity.

3. Measurement of the condition of the completion string.

The tools that are used most often within a completed well include compensated neutron, gamma-ray
and specialty logs such as activation or carbon/oxygen. The tools that distinguish oil from gas and
water and monitor their flow rates include flow meters, temperature log, fluid density log, radioactive
tracers and noise logs. Tools for monitoring the mechanical condition of a completed well include
cement bond logs, casing collar logs, casing inspection logs and casing potential logs. In addition to
the direct measurements available from the previously mentioned logs, many of the tools will provide
data that can be further manipulated or compared with data from other tools to indicate special conditions or problems within the wells.
The production logging tools that can differentiate between oil, gas and water in a producing well allow
the diagnosis of completion and production problems. In particular, these tools help to pinpoint gas, oil
and water entries and exit from the production stream. They may also determine, in combination with
other flow measurements, how much fluid is produced from a zone. The fluid identification devices can
be roughly categorized in two major groups. Those that respond directly to physical properties of well-

11-42

bore fluids such as density or dielectric constant and those that respond to the physical effects caused
by the actual flow of fluids such as temperature changes or noise.
The pressure differential and the pressure difference between two points in a well may be measured
with a gradiomanometer tool. This tool measures the pressure differential by measuring the expansion
or contraction of a small metal bellows system filled with oil. In highly deviated wells, the pressure difference measured requires a correction equal to the cosine of the deviation angle in order to convert
to a fluid density. Since the measurement is that of a pressure difference, a simplifying assumption is
made that the only cause of a pressure difference is hydrostatic head of the wellbore fluid. This is usually true but has some exceptions if fluid flow is restricted to a small cross sectional area. Other tools
such as the dielectric log are a measurement of electrical capacitance and is very useful for estimating
the amount of water in the oil. The noise log is an audio log that picks up the noise frequency spectrum in a certain zone.% This is very useful for spotting areas of fluid entry, especially under high pressure. Noise logging is useful wherever a flow of fluid exists in the casing or tubing. The noise log is
essentially a microphone suspended in the well. The reading of the noise log is heavily experience
dictated. A fluid sampler log is useful for obtaining PVT samples in an interval.
The fluid density log operates on the same principal as a formation density tool. A source of gammarays is positioned with respect to a detector so that wellbore fluid acts as an absorber of the gammaray radiation. A high count rate indicates a fluid of low density and a low count rate indicates a fluid of
high density. The advantages of the fluid density log over the gradiometer are the fact that the measurement is not affected by wellbore deviation angle nor friction effect in a high rate well.

Fluid Surveys Formation

The movement of the fluid within the formation becomes of interest to determine if the reservoir is
being completely swept in flooding operations or whether the entire reservoir is being drained at an
economic rate. Although these considerations are usually in the area of reservoir engineering, they do
impact well completions because of the importance of stimulations or remedial, zone sealing action
necessary for extreme problem cases.
Zone permeability variances, thief zones, and natural fracture networks in flood operations may be
mapped with use of tracers in the injected fluid. Normally, a nonreactive tracer in a small concentration
is put in the water at the injection well and the produced water in the pattern producing radioactive fluids or nonradioactive compounds that are normally absent in the water. For a tracer to be successful,
it must be nonreactive, nonadsorbing, and not degradable by bacteria or other conditions in the reservoir.
Monitoring how well a zone is being drained under primary recovery is usually accomplished with
pressure surveys. In a well with multiple zones, each zone must be isolated with packers or test tools
and a maximum pressure attained. Comparison of the measured pressure is made to initial pressure
in the zone. Buildups on individual zones are also done but much less frequently. This technique is
entirely dependent upon the isolation of the zone, both in the casing and the wellbore. A good primary
cement job and absence of channels, fractures, and high vertical permeabilities are required.

Fluid Surveys Wellbore

Fluid movement within the wellbore is of interest to determine where the fluid is entering or leaving the
well. Its customary use is in how much fluid an individual zone is producing or is accepting in the case
of an injection well, but some surveys can also be used to determine if zone-to-zone circulation is
occurring.
Fluid entry or exit and movement leave passive traces such as temperature changes and noise and
the active trace of velocity. The fluid movement logs are designed to track those changes. The temperature log may be used to spot fluid entry or exit from a formation as shown in Figure 11.32. The
fluid gradient across the formation is usually a straight line. If an anomaly occurs, there may be fluid
movement into or out of a zone or, in some cases, fluid movement behind the pipe in a channel in the

1 1-43

cement. The noise log is often used with other logging methods as a correlation technique and is
rarely a stand-alone log because of interferences.

-1

(Smith, Steffensen, 1975)

Figure 11.32: Temperature log scan showing fluid injection location.

Tracking the velocity patterns in a well, by spinner surveys (rotating propeller or vane), radioactive
tracer, or other methods have been accepted as a method of assigning quantitative numbers to the
amount of fluid entering or leaving a particular spot in the wellbore. Both logs are severely limited
unless full flow moves through the measuring area. Gas and solids also prove troublesome for the
tools.
Spinner surveys use the fluid movement to drive a propeller or turbine, with the impeller speed being
proportional to the amount of velocity. By moving the tool from top to bottom in an interval, the difference velocity of the fluid at each place can be correlated into an estimate of how much fluid was entering or exiting in a given area. The spinner survey tools may be constructed to measure the full fluid
movement by devices that divert all the fluids into the spinner cage or only measure the velocity of fluids that flow past the tool. Because of velocity variances across the diameter of the well, especially in
even slightly inclined wellbores, the full diameter of the flowing fluid must be measured to achieve
accurate results, Figure 11.33.
Radioactive tracer profiling can also give an indication of the relative velocity of fluid at any point in the
wellbore. The tool works by ejecting a small, measured portion of radioactive tracer into the fluid flowing past the tool and detecting the tracer with a counter. The time between ejection and detection in a
wellbore of known diameter and for a given ejectoddetector spacing can be used to calculate the
velocity. The tool is a standard test in some injection wells, but like the spinner survey, the velocity
gradients across the wellbore can make accurate measurement difficult unless very careful guidelines
are followed.
In an investigation that proved the fallacy tools that do not divert the full flow into a measuring area,
Marathon showed in a full-size test facility with one, two and three-phase flow-in-pipe, that high rates
of flow up the high side of the pipe (in an angled or inclined wellbore) could be totally missed by any of
the profiling tools.39 In the most severe case, using a gas cut fluid, the gas would lift liquid up the
upper side of the casing and water without gas would flow down the lower side of the casing. For a
tool that measures only part of the stream, the tool might read production or injection in the same well
at the same flow conditions depending on placement of the tool in the wellbore. The angle of deviation
that caused problems started at a few degrees: this covers virtually every well ever drilled. Dresser
also has shown problems with the tool indicating that the radioactive tracer could actually move
counter to the flow of fluids or would plate out on the wall, pipe or formation.39 Modifications to these
production tools has made the technique more usable and more accurate. In the spinner surveys, a
full opening petal basket to divert all of the flow through a small area has heightened accuracy considerably. The tracer profiling tools have also been made much more accurate with the addition of an arm
that comes out from the tool and injects tracer into the main flow of fluid. By these changes, some of
the uncertainty in the application and interpretation of production surveys has been reduced. The full
diverting spinner survey is probably more accurate than the side arm tracer tool.

11-44

(Smollen)

Figure 11.33: An illustration of a problem with a production

log in an inclined wellbore. The segregation of
fluids leads to gas moving along the top of the
wellbore, setting up a circulation of liquids up
along the upper side and then some liquids
coming down along the lower side of the wellbore. The effect is to show much less production (or even injection).

Temperature logs are logging tools with temperature sensitive

They react very quickly to
changes in the temperature of the wellbore fluids and may be used in open holes or cased completions. The primary reasons for running a temperature log are:
1. Finding the cement top after a recent cementing operation.
2. Finding a lost circulation zone in a currently drilling well.
,

3. Finding fluid entry and exit points in production and injection wells.
4. Estimating the top of the fracture near the wellbore immediately after fracture stimulation.

Undisturbed formation temperature increases predictably with depth. The increase in the temperature
with depth is known as the geothermal gradient and is usually in the range of 1-2OF/lOO ft. Geothermal
gradients will vary from place to place and should be obtained before working in an area. From the
geothermal gradient and the surface temperature, the temperature at any depth may be estimated by
extrapolating the curves or using the relationship Tfo-ation = Tsudam + (depth x geothermal gradient).
Obviously, the only temperature that varies seasonally is the surface temperature so the value you
used for surface temperature in the equations is actually the mean annual surface temperature, which
will usually range from 60-70F. Seasonal surface temperatures do not penetrate deeply into the
ground and can be ignored for most logging operations. The only notable exception is the permafrost
zone that exists near polar regions. The seasonal temperature effect on fluids can be substantial when
large volumes of fluids are injected.
Estimation of the formation temperature from openhole logs can be made provided it is remembered
that a logging run in a currently drilling well is made in fluid which has been circulated, thus the wellbore is cooler than the surrounding formation. In a well that is not being circulated, several runs can
be made in the same hole and a plot can be constructed of temperature versus time (from which, the
undisturbed formation temperature can be estimated).

11-45

Although the cement bond log is now commonly used for determining the cement top on completion,
the temperature log was formally used for this purpose. The advantage of the temperature log is that it
is cheaper and demands less rig time. The temperature log measures the temperature rise produced
by the exothermic chemical reaction that takes place when cement is curing.

Loss or entry of fluid from or into the wellbore also can be seen with a temperature log provided there
is substantial difference between the temperature of the wellbore fluids and the temperature of the formation. A graph of this type of information was shown in Figure 11.32. This same type of anomaly can
be seen in liquid entry and gas production where the temperature log is used to note points of fluid
entry.
If more than one zone is taking water in an injection well, it is sometimes difficult to judge from the
temperature profile which zone is taking a percentage of injection water. Although there are relationships that establish methods of quantitative determination with the temperature log, a tracer injection
log or a spinner log that measures the full flow across the entire pipe is recommended for this operation.

Channels behind the pipe that are experiencing fluid flow may also be spotted with a temperature log
provided the log is of the special type known as a radial differential temperature tool (RDT) that scans
segments of the wellbore for differences in temperature.= The operating principle of this log relies on
the probability that the temperature in the channel is different from the temperature in the surrounding
formation. If the fluid is channeling from above or below, it is very probable that a temperature differential will be present. Such a log track is shown in Figure 11.34.

(Cooke, 1978)

Figure 11.34: Radial temperature scan of a well with a gas

channel downward to the oil zone.

Noise Logging
Noise log measurements are made at various preselected or spaced depths in the well. At each stop,
the amplitude of the noise in a number of frequency bands is determined and plotted on a log. These
individual point readings may be joined together by straight lines to give the appearance of a continuous log such as the one shown in Figure 11.35. The noise log is one of the few tools that can distinguish between the entry of gas and liquid into the wellbore. Noise logging is governed by two basic
principles. A change in noise level indicates a change in volumetric flow rate, and change in relative
noise level in different frequency bands indicates changes in the phase make-up of the fluid mixture.

11-46

NImD

30
10

1.11
271

2 3

13

27l

10
3 6
I0
O

Ln
o

coo
U

E
X.4C
8.43
E

zawl
5.1%

16m
623
.Zm( COM 0llS.m nb

a*mrtr6
1.71
b
139
6
1.71
6 1 . 7 1
f,72

10
80

271
U1

sm

UIO

1.43

ldo

1.43
737

an
an
500
PO

sm

TOTAL

737

7.u
8.91

~.y

nm

842%

1W.71

(Britt, 1976)

Figure 11.35: Noise log track showing estimation of fluid production location.

Borehole Surveys
Inspection of the wellbore for fractures in openhole sections or the tubular integrity is available
through both direct and indirect examining tools. Fracture location, orientation, and width can be
accomplished with direct inspection tools such as downhole television cameras, sonic calipers (the
borehole televiewer), impression packers5 and multifingered calipers, and by indirect tools including
collar locators, sonic inspection devices (circumferential microsonic and acoustic devices, sonic log,
cement bond long) and some other electronic logs. These devices are useful, within limitations, for
detecting fractures and other information, but only at the surface of the casing or openhole.
The downhole television camera relays a closed circuit video signal that can be a very detailed inspection of the surface of casing or borehole. The cameras are usually oriented in the tool so that they are
downlooking, although only an angled mirror is necessary for side inspection. Cameras may run in gas
or fluid-filled boreholes depending on their design and are very useful for verification or fractures or
perforations and inspection of visible wellbore damage, perforations or junk in the hole, Figure 11-36a.
The cameras have very severe limitations, however, since they must supply their own light-source and
can only work in very clean water if they are submergible.
Impression packers are inflatable, soft rubber covered bags that capture a record of perforations, casing splits, couplings and other surface details on the rubber skin, Figure 11.36b.59

Mapping
The use of maps is an important and yet often overlooked method of spotting anomalous behavior in a
well in relation to other wells in the field.60 Maps may be based on almost any variable in the production sequence: fluid cuts, pressures (Figure 11.37), kh, etc. Most maps are constructed by posting the
variable by the well location and drawing contour lines through points of the same value. Another

11-47

(Courtesy of Arnoco Production Co.)

Figure 11.36a: A photo of a perforation taken by a side looking television camera at a depth of 2046 ft. The well was filled with
water.

(Hutchison, Worfd Oil, Nov. 1974)

Figure 11.36b: Inflatable packer impression showing threads and a

perforation through the threads of a coupling in cas-

common map is the stick or profile map that is useful for matching formation tops, determining formation dip and thickness or tracing pinchouts, Figure 11.38.
Two of the most useful maps are the GOR map and the iso-pressure map. The GOR map is developed
on a field base map with the GOR of each well posted at the well location and the points of like GOR
connected by iso-GOR lines. A high GOR producer in an area of low GOR wells (assuming a consistent structure) can signal a gas channeling problem. The same principle is effective in construction of
a WOR map with edge or bottom drive reservoirs. The iso-pressure map is usually constructed with
reservoir or flowing bottomhole pressures. With this map, identification can be made of wells that are
both over and under produced.

11-48

NW

SE

(Slatt & Hopkins, JPT, Feb. 1990)

Figure 11.37: A stick or cross section map across part of a field. Each
dark vertical line is a well.

(Slatt & Hopkins, JPT, Feb. 1990)

Figure 11.38: A map of flow units (layers) in a field.
Each dark vertical line represents a well.

Overlays of the maps may often spotlight reasons for anomalies or production problems, e.g., low
pressure are usually consistent with high GOR incidences; a high GOR in a region of normal pressure
may signal gas entry from an outside source.

11-49

Completion and Lift Analysis

When a formation shows a large, unexplained skin damage and well records show that acidizing or
chemical treating has historically performed poorly, there is a good possibility a reservoir feed-in problem caused by inadequate lift or poor perforations. In the case of suspicious perforations, it is much
more economical to reperforate several intervals with a through-tubing gun than to acidize or otherwise chemically treat formations. Problems with lift equipment rank very high among the reasons for
low producing rates in many wells. Lift equipment problems can usually be seen by the height of the
fluid in the well as judged by sonic instruments. A high fluid level in a well results in large back pressures on the formation with a net decrease in the pressure differential that forces fluids toward the
wellbore. In almost any application, the height of the fluid above the pump must be controlled to establish an optimum completion.
How well a properly designed lift system is working may also affect the fluid level and the productivity
of the well. Analysis such as the dynamometer test for rod pumped wells and performance curves
combined with fluid height measurements are often useful in spotting problems with artificial lift equipment.

Production and Operations Information

Information recovered from producing operations is one of the very best sources of diagnostic data - if
it is recorded. The following is a partial list of information generated by visual exams.
1. Location of deposits on tubing. When the tubing is pulled, note the location of paraffin, asphalt-

enes, scale, bacteria, rust and other deposits. Samples of material from freshly pulled wells are
valuable for tests of solvents. The location is needed to calculate volumes, overflushes and spotting information. Measure deposit thicknesses to estimate rate of deposition or growth.
2. Character of corrosion attack areas. Presence and location of pitting, local corrosion, erosion
and wear areas. Post-mortum examinations can often specify reasons for failure and methods of
prevention IF there is a sample to examine. Also note presence of bacterial slime, the odor of
H,S and color changes of coatings. If the tubing is coated, note location and number of holidays
(holes), cracks, and general condition.

3. Stains on outside of tubing indicate liquid levels. Circular markings indicate fluid entry points.
Erosion is an indication of sand entry with the fluid stream or extremely high velocity flow. Wear
areas show tubing movement that is common with rod pumped wells without tubing anchors, or
less often, in thermal wells due to stretch caused by temperature cycling. Running a freshly
painted tailpipe across from perforations or the site of an expected leak will show strong fluid
entry points. The soft paint will show discoloration or marking where fluids impinge on the pipe.
Erosion of the paint shows strong flow or entry of solids in the fluid stream.
4. Water cut and salinity changes can signal breakthrough of floods, natural water drives, leaks, or

load fluid recovery. Water cut may also be coincidental with onset of emulsion upsets, sand production, and drawdown pressure changes.
5. GOR changes may be caused by leaks, excessive drawdowns, depletion and fracturing because
gas rate tests are often infrequent and inaccurate so repeat tests are useful.

6. Stimulation fluid and kill fluid backflow effects often reflect character of the formation and the formation fluids. Presence of surface emulsions, sludges and precipitates indicate fluid incompatibilities that may occur downhole. Strength of returning acid can signal the need for less acid or
lower strength acid. Iron contents in returned spent acids may be indicative of corrosion or high
native iron contents in the formation. Background data is needed before corrosion is predicted.
Slow cleanup of wells after stimulation is an indication of temporary damage such as paraffin

11-50

precipitation by cool stimulation fluids, salinity shock from a higher or lower salinity brine,
trapped water or gas in the pore space, etc.
7. Monitoring pH when recovering spent acids can identify the end of the recovery period. A rise in
pH above 6 is often coincidental with the end of emulsion upsets in tank batteries following acid

treatments. Presence of fines and dissolved iron is also an important emulsion factor in predicting emulsion problems following an acid treatment.
8. Pressure effects while injecting fluids can help locate depth of damage in the formation. If the

pressure declines sharply when the acid hits the formation, the damage is very shallow - probably face plugging. If pressure declines slowly, the damage is deep or the damage is slowly soluble in the acid. If pressure increases when acid hits the formation, damage is being created,
solids are being carried by the acid or the reservoir is very limited. If pressure remains constant,
damage is not reactive with acid, the well is not damaged, or another problem such as limited
perforations are limiting the fluid entry and masking the effects of the acid.

9. Examination of recovered perforating guns can give an idea of how well the perforating charges
fired. The roundness and placement of the hole is important; the size of the hole in the gun is not
important.
10. Condition of seals on stingers and other seal assemblies can show evidence of seal degrada-

tion, cyclic wear, or lack of contact.

11. Recovered logging tools, especially those with centralizers can yield samples of casing wall

coating such as scale, sludge, or bacteria. Depth or origin of the deposit cannot be gauged.
12. Well production behavior may give clues to problems with fluid heading, excessive drawdowns
or other factors. Nonsteady state behavior should be investigated.

Rock Mechanics Information From Logs

Derivation of formation in-situ properties can be important because of the effect of the stresses on
drilling rate, perforating penetration, fracture azimuth (global or compass direction), height, and even
the ease of fracturing."'-'j4 Although it is possible to determine the stress values from carefully prepared, oriented core, the use of such processes is costly and is limited by depth and other factors. The
use of full waveform sonic logs offers some information that, when coupled with information from other
sources such as core work or indentation (hardness) tests, can give reasonable values of in-situ
stresses. Elastic wave propagation in rocks provides a means to determine the dynamic mechanical
properties of rocks. The sonic wave velocity increases in a material as that material's strength and
hardness increases.65 Full waveform sonic logs are generated by a tool with a generator and a set of
receivers at various points up to 12 ft away. The sonic signal enters the formation from the liquid filled
borehole (the tool is centralized) and spreads radially as a compression wave. At every point of the
borehole, the traveling wave generates a signal that goes back through the fluid to the receivers in the
tool. The velocity of the signal is a function of the density of the formation. With selective processing
and tool calibration, the difference between pipe signal and formation signal can be distinguished.
(The behavior of the return signal is also the basis for the cement bond log in cased holes.) The character of the waveform will vary as the formation varies.65
A second wave, generated by the compression wave as it moves through the formation, is the shear
wave. This wave results from molecular friction in response to the initial compression wave. The shear
wave is actually a second compression wave whose arrival at the receiver follows that of the initial
compression wave. A trace of the wave recording is shown in Figure 11.39.65 The compression and
shear wave velocities are picked from the log and used to calculate various in-situ parameters.

11-51

Time (XS)

(Tubrnan et al.

Figure 11.39: Shear wave recording

These
General equations relating sonic waves to elastic properties are available in the
equations may provide estimates of the in-situ properties but the measurements may be affected by
water salinity and saturation, formation fluid type, unconsolidated sediments and the other factors that
affect log quality.64

E-

9 Kp V z
3K+pV,2'

Young's Modulus
(11.27)

112

- 4/3

,Bulk Modulus

(11.28)

,Poisson's ratio

(11.29)
or, in travel time

($)[

3Afi-4At;
At: - At:

x 1.34 x 1010
(1 1.30)

11-52

p( 3At:

3At:

- 4At;

1 ~ 1 . 3 10lo
4 ~

- At:
(11.31)

(11.32)
where
E
K
V,
Vs
p
At,
Ats
p

= Youngs modulus

= Bulk modulus
= Compressional velocity, (Wsec)
= Shear velocity, (Wsec)

= Bulk density, (g/cc)

= Compressional travel time (pseclft)
= Shear travel time (psec/ft)

= Poissons ratio

Since rock density is a direct relationship between the volume of void spaces in the rock and the
matrix material, for a particular lithology, the higher the density of the rock, the stronger the rock and
the lower its porosity.64Other tools that are useful in rock property analysis are the hardness tester or
indentation tool68169and the resistivity logs.64
A widely accepted equation for calculation of closure stress uses Poissons ratio calculated from shear
to compressional v e ~ o c i t i e s . ~ ~

s,

-ss,+
P
1-2Ps
1-P

l-p

(11.33)

where:
Sh = Horizontal closure stress
p
= Poissons ratio
= Vertical overburden stress (usually 1 psi/ft)
S,
Sp = Stress due to formation pressure
When formation pressure is in a range of normal to 0.6 times normal, Sp is equal to the pore pressure.7o Examples of the correlation of measured closure stress and log derived closure stress gradients are shown in Figure 11.40.
Mechanical Properties

The effect of in-situ stresses becomes very important in consideration of the effect of mud weight on
formation stability. The classic cube segment affected by stresses,

11-53

SFE 1 calculated and measured values'

(Hunt & Ebinger)

Figure 11.40: Measured vs. log derived closure

is converted to radial coordinates

and
Oz=

<To

Po+2p((a,-oy)

= 30, = by' Pmud

= pmud

The stress equations are based on the difference in the hydrostatic load of the drilling mud and the
pore pressure. When fluid penetration occurs from the mud into the pores, the stress level is a maximum at the borehole wall and decreases with distance away from the wall until initial pore pressure
conditions are reached.62In their discussion of the use of Mohr's circle to predict borehole failure,
Coates and Denoo state that to obtain an effective rock stress (stress that produces a deformation in
the rock skeleton), the pore pressure must be subtracted from the radial coordinate stress relationships.62

For effective stress, with nonpenetratingfluid62

Oeeff =

30, - 02- prnud-aPP

(11.34)
(11.35)
(11.36)

For effective stress with penetrating fluid62

(11.37)

11-54

(11.38)

(11.39)
where

=,
=Y

Poissons ratio (about 0.25 for most cores)

A multiplier (0.6)
Overburden pressure
Pore pressure
Mud hydrostatic pressure
The pore pressure and the overburden are usually constant over then intervals and test times so the
only variable is the mud hydrostatic pressure. As the mud weight increases, the tangential stress
decreases and radial stress increases, and as mud weight decreases, the tangential stress increases
and radial stress decreases.62

Basic Logging Tool Response

There are a number of useful logs that are available for initial and remedial investigation of wellbores,
formations and flow. The following paragraphs illustrate the more common logging tools.
Resistivity logging is useful in formation correlation from well to well and also in the identification and
distinction of hydrocarbons from water in the formation. The formation resistivity is a property of the
rock that indicates how resistive the total rock package is to the flow of electrical current. The first type
of resistance logging is electrical logging and the second is induction logging. Electric logs are the first
form of logging that was developed for subsurface application and was originally meant to map subsurface ore deposits. It measures resistivity when passing a current between electrodes. The current
is passed and the resulting voltage or potential is measured between the other electrodes. One electrode is at the surface and the other is at the end of the logging cable downhole. The measured voltage can be converted in resistivities by estimating the current flow pattern in the reservoir. This flow
pattern is a function of such things as electrode spacing, borehole size, drilling mud or kill fluid salinity,
and such minor things as logging speed and instrument design. A series of readings of resistivity
becomes the familiar log response of resistivity.
The depth of investigation that can be reached with this type of tool is the radial depth that the electric
current processes in the formation. It is related to spacing of the tool and the design of the receptors.
A microresistivity device has a depth of investigation of a few inches, while the deep laterolog may
investigate several feet deep.

Induction resistivity is obtained by inducing a current into the formation using specially placed coils in
the logging tool. These coils produce a magnetic field which causes current to flow in the formation
around the wellbore. These currents create a magnetic field that causes a small current to flow
through measurement coils in the tools. Part of the problem with these dual magnetic fields and coils

11-55

is what is called direct coupling, and this must be avoided. As a general rule, most induction tools
have an investigation depth of a few feet.
The SP log, or spontaneous potential log, is not a resistivity measurement, but is instead a very simple
measurement of voltage that measures the difference between the fluid salinity in the wellbore and the
salinity of another fluid in the formation rock. The primary use of the SP is as an indicator of permeability.
By combining various resistivity measurements with knowledge of the porosity and knowledge of the
resistivity of the water in the formation, the identification of oil in gas-bearing formations is possible.

Gamma Ray Logging

Gamma ray logs use the natural radioactivity in the formation to distinguish reservoir rocks from
shales. Gamma ray logging measures the natural gamma radiation emitted by the formations. Typically, this radioactive signature remains relatively constant during the entire life of the well and is a
convenient tool for depth correlations and for determining formation types, as well as identifying individual formations in offset wells. In general, the higher the radiation signature from the rock, the less
likely that the rock is a potential reservoir rock and the more likely that it is a shale. There are significant exceptions to this general rule, however. Many formations that contain either radioactive isotopes
or volcanic debris have a high natural radioactive signature and may be reservoir.
As with most logs, it is advisable to use the reading from several logs and compare the data. The identification of nonshale formations as target formations is the first step; but the second step is determining from porosity logs if there is pore space available for containing and flowing fluids. The third
requirement then uses the resistivity logs to determine if the pore space contains water or hydrocarbon.

Acoustic or Sonic Logging

Sonic or acoustic logs measure formation porosity. Acoustic devices measure reception and characteristics of a sound wave emitted from a transmitter in the tool and received from the formation. The
conic wave reaches one or more receivers in the tool after being transmitted. The travel time and the
amplitude of the sound wave are the primary measurements of the tool. The velocity, which is commonly reported on the log, is the inverse of the travel time.
Sonic tools may be of more than one type. Some sonic tools bounce the wave off the rock face. The
amplitude and travel time of the wave is recorded and measured by a spinning transducer that is both
the transmitter and receiver in the tool. This can create an image of the borehole on logging film. This
type of tool, often referred to as a sonic caliper or a televiewer, is useful for mapping physical surface
changes in the wellbore. The second type of tool, and by far the most common, is the porosity measuring tool. In any solid object, there is a linear relationship between the effective porosity and the
travel time. In relatively clean (clay free) reservoir rock, the effective porosity is the intergranular
porosity and excludes both fractures and large vugular porosity. Several factors can lessen the effect
of porosity measurement with a sonic tool. Higher pressures, even with gas, can make the sonic tool
read lower than normal porosities. For this reason, several sonic tools are generally run and compared. The response from other logs is also taken to determine which porosity log will have the greatest accuracy.

Neutron Logging
Neutron logs are another method of measuring traditional formation porosity. One popular style of the
tool is a compensated neutron log which uses a neutron source and two or more neutron detectors.
The source emits neutrons into the formation. The count rate of neutrons coming back to the tool is
generally an inverse function of porosity. The tool response may be also affected by borehole condi-

11-56

tions. To minimize this effect, the ratio of the two detectors is often taken. In this manner, the porosity
value is much less affected by borehole conditions.

Density Logging
The density log is the third type of formation porosity measurement. Density tools utilize a gamma ray
source placed a distance from the gamma ray detector. The gamma ray count rate or reception in the
detector is inversely proportional to the rock density. If the matrix density is constant, the rock density
is an inverse function of porosity. This means that as porosity increases, the gamma ray increases. It
is easier for gamma rays to find their way from the source through the rock to the detector when the
porosity is high and the obstructing density of the formation is lower.
The gamma ray density log is different from the gamma ray tool mentioned in the first paragraph of
this section. The gamma ray tool has no gamma ray source, only a detector that measures natural formation gamma ray radiation.
Another tool of a similar nature is the natural gamma ray spectroscopy tool that breaks down the natural gamma radiation into its primary radioactive components; namely, potassium, uranium, and thorium.
The density log is the only gamma ray tool that utilizes both a gamma ray source and a gamma ray
detector.

Natural Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Log

The primary use of natural gamma ray spectroscopy logs is to measure the natural radioactive source
elements of potassium, uranium, and thorium. This allows a direct observation of clay type, and in
some cases, the occurrence of fractures. The tool uses sensitive detectors that measure various
energy levels and the output requires mathematical modeling for processing.

Induced Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Log

The induced gamma ray spectroscopy log measures the elemental makeup of rock. It is probably one
of the most complex tools in the logging suite. It utilizes a pulsed neutron source that bombards the
formation with neutrons. The source is turned on and then turned off in a cycle that allows time for
measurement of gamma ray radiation returning from the rock. Information available from this type of
tool includes identity of rock matrix type, porosity, and the presence of oil without the knowledge of the
water salinity value that is required for resistivity logging.

11-57

References
1. Mach, J., Proano, E., Brown, K. E.: A Nodal Approach for Applying Systems Analysis to Flowing
and Artificial Lift Oil or Gas Well, SPE 8025.
2. Brown, K. E., Lea, J. F.: Nodal Systems Analysis of 011and Gas Wells, J.P.T., (Oct. 1985),
pp. 1751-1 763.
3. Gilbert, W. E.: Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance, API, Spring Mtg., Pacific Coast District,
Los Angeles, May 1954.
4. Smith, R. V.: Practical Natural Gas Engineering, Pennwell Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK (1983).
5. Duggan, J. 0.: Estimating Flow Rate Required to Keep Gas Wells Unloaded, J. Pet. Tech.,

(Dec. 1961) 1173.

6. Turner, R. G., Hubbard, M. G., Duckler, A. E.: Analysis and Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for
Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells, J.P.T. (Nov. 1969) p. 1175.
7. Smith, R. V.: Sound Engineering Improves Natural Gas Production, Pet. Eng. Intl. (Feb. 1989),
pp. 35-44.
8. DArcy, H.: Les Fountaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon, 1856.
9. Patton, L. D., Abbott, W. A.: The Well Inflow System: Applications, Pet. Eng. Int. (Nov., 1980),
p. 56, 58, 60, and 64.
10. Rawlins, E. L., Schellhardt, M. A.: Back-Pressure Data on Natural Gas Wells and Their Application to Production Practices, Bureau of Mines Monograph 7, (1935).
11. Long, 0. R., David, M. J.: A New Approach to the Hyperbolic Curve, J.P.T., (July 1988) pp. 909919.
12. Patton, L. D., Abbott, W. A.: The Well Outflow System: Tubing Performance, Pet. Eng. Int.,
(March 1981), pp. 96-1 07.
13. Forchheimer, P.: Wasserbewegung durch Boden, Zeitz ver Deutsch Ing. (1901) 45, 1731,
14. Green, L., Duwez, P.: Fluid Flow Through Porous Metals, J. Appl. Mech. (March 1951) p. 39.
15. Holditch, S.A., Morse, R. A.: The Effects of Turbulence on the Behavior of Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells, SPE 5586, 50th Annu. Fall Mtg., Dallas, Sept. 28-Oct. 1, 1975.
16. Cornell, D., Katz, D. L.: Flow of Gases Through Consolidated Porous Media, Ind. and Eng.
Chem. (Oct. 1953), p. 2145.
17. Firoozabadi, A., Katz, D. L.: An Analysis of High-Velocity Gas Flow Through Porous Media,
JPT, (Feb. 1979), pp. 211-216.
18. Geertsma, J.: Estimating the Coefficient of Inertial Resistance in Fluid Flow Through Porous
Media, SPEJ, (Oct. 1974), pp. 445-450.
19. Cooke, C. E., Jr.: Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in Multiple Layers, J. Pet. Tech., (Sept.
1973), 1101-1107.

11-58

20. Fetkovich, M. J.: Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves, J. Pet. Tech., (June 1980), 235236.
21. Long, 0. R., Davis, M. J.: A New Approach to the Hyperbolic Curve, J.P.T. July 1988, pp. 909919.
22. Gentry, R. W., McCray, A. W.: The Effect of Reservoir and Fluid Properties on Production
Decline Curves, J. Pet. Tech., (Sept. 1978) (1327-1 341).
23. McNulty, R. R., Knapp, R. M.: Statistical Decline Curve Analysis, SPE 10279, Annual Mtg., San
Antonio, Oct. 5-7, 1981.
24. Bailey, W.: Optimized Hyperbolic Decline Curve Analysis of Gas Wells, Oil & Gas J., (Feb. 15,
1982) 118.
25. Fetkovich, M. J., Vienot, M. E.,Bradley, M. D., Kiesow, U. G.: Decline Curve Analysis Using
Type Curves-Case Histories, SPE Form. Eval., (Dec. 1987), pp. 637-656.

26. Patton, L. D., Abbott, W. A.: The Systems Approach to Well Behavior, Pet. Eng. Int. (July
1980), pp. 90-94.
27. Straub, T. J., Autry, S. W., King, G. E.: An Investigation into Practical Removal of Downhole Paraffin by Thermal Methods and Chemical Solvents, SPE 18889, Prod. Oper. Sym., Okla. City,
March 13-14, 1989.
28. Widmyer, R. H.: Use of Monitor/Observation Wells in the Monitoring and Evaluation of Oil
Recovery Projects, J. Pet. Tech., (Aug. 1987), pp. 967-975.
29. Gesink, J. C. J., Van den Bergen, E. A., de Monchy, A. R., Rijnders, J. P., Soet, J.: Use of
Gamma Ray-Emitting Tracers and Subsequent Gamma Ray Logging in an Observation Well to
Determine the Preferential Flow Zones in a Reservoir, J.P.T., (April 1985), pp. 711-719.
30. Arps, J. J.: Analysis of Decline Curves,Trans., AIME, (1944) 160, 228-247.
31. Review of Basic Formation Evaluation, Johnston-Macco, Schlumberger.
32. Greene, W. R.: Analyzing the Performance of Gas Wells, J.P.T., (July 1983), pp. 1378-1384.
33. Barron, W. C.: Simple Method Determines Gas Flow Rate, Pet. Eng. Int., (May 1988), pp. 5256.
34. Patton, L. D., Abbott, W. A.: T h e Systems Approach to Well Testing (Feedback), Pet. Eng. Int.
(Sept. 1980), pp. 80-90.
35. van Everdingen, A. F., and Hurst, W.: The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow
Problems in Reservoirs, Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 305-324.

36. Horner, D. R.: Pressure Buildup in Wells, Proc., Third World Pet. Cong., The Hague (1951)
Sec. II, 503-523.
37. Agarwal, R. G., Al-Hussainy, R., and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: An Investigation of Wellbore Storage and
Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: I. Analytical Treatment, SPEJ (Sept. 1970) 279-290.

11-59

38. Economides, M. J., Nolte, K. G.: Reservoir Stimulation, Schlumberger Educational Services,
1987.
39. Dewan, J. T.: Essentials of Modern Open-Hole Log Interpretation, Penn Well Books, 1983,
Tulsa.
40. Vogel, C. B., Herolz, R. A.: The CAD, A Circumferential Acoustical Device for Well Logging, J.
Pet. Tech., (Oct. 1981), 1985-87.
41. Setser, G. G.: Fracture Detection by Circumferential Propagation of Acoustic Energy, SPE
10204, Annual Mtg., San Antonio, Oct. 4-7, 1981.
42. Suau, J., Gartner, J.: Fracture Detection from Well Logs, Log Analyst, (1980) 21, No. 2,3.
43. Hirsch, J. M., et al.: Recent Experience with Wireline Fracture Detection Logs, SPE 10333,
Annual Mtg., San Antonio, Oct. 4-7, 1981.
44. Koerperich, E. A.: Evaluation of the Circumferential Microsonic Log - A Fracture Detection
Device, Soc. Prof. Well Log Anal., June 4-7, 1975.
45. Morris, R. L., Grine, D. R., Arkfled, T. E.: Using Compressional and Shear Acoustic Amplitudes
for the Location of Fractures, J. Pet. Tech., (June 1964), 623-32.

46. Zemanek, J. et al.: The Borehole Televiewer A New Logging Concept for Fracture Location
and Other Types of Borehole Inspection, J. Pet. Tech., (1969), 762-74.
47. Archie, G. E.: The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics, SPE-Trans. (1942), pp. 54-62.
48. Hunt, E., Ebinger, C. D.: Use of New Tools, Techniques, Enhance Fracturing Results, O.G.J.
(March 27, 1989), pp. 33-41.
49. Smollen, J. J.: Cased-Hole Logging
pp, 165-175.

- A Perspective, The Log Analyst, March-April 1987,

50. Fertl, W. H., Pilkington, P. E., Scott, J. B.: A Look at Cement Bond Logs, SPE Reprint Series,
No. 5a, 95-105.

51. Clerke, E. A., Van Akkeren, T. J.: Borehole Televiewer Improves Completion Results in a Permian Basin San Andres Reservoir, SPE Production Engineering, (Feb. 1988), pp. 89-96.
52. Schultz, A. L., Bell, W. T., Urbanosky, H. J.: Advancements in Uncased-Hole, Wireline Formation Tester Techniques, J.P.T, (Nov. 1975), pp. 1331-1336.
53. Conversation with Gil Feather, Amoco, July, 1991.
54. Britt, E. L.: Theory and Applications of the Borehole Audio Tracer Survey, S.P.W.L.A. Annual
Symposium, June, 1976.
55. Wages, P. E.: Interpretation of Post Fracture Temperature Surveys, SPE 1189, 57th Annual
Mtg., Sept. 26-29, 1982, New Orleans.

56. Dobkins, T. A.: Methods to Better Determine Hydraulic Fracture Height, SPE 8403,54th Annual
Tech. Mtg., Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26, 1979.

11-60

57. Smith, R. C., Steffensen, R. J.: Interpretation of Temperature Profiles in Water Injection Wells,
J.P.T. (June 1975), p. 777-784.
58. Cooke, C. E.: Radial Differential Temperature (RDT) Logging - A New Tool for Detecting and
Treating Flow Behind Casing, SPE 7558, 53rd Annual Mtg., Houston, Oct. 1-3, 1978.
59. Hutchison, S.0.: Impression Tool Defines Downhole Equipment Problems, World Oil, (Nov. 47), 74-80.
60. Anderson, J.S.: Pressure Mapping as an Aid to Understanding Reservoir Drainage, SPE
22962, Asia Pacific Conference, Perth, Australia, Nov. 4-7, 1991.
61. Warpinski, N. R., Northrop, D. A., Schmidt, R. A.: In Situ Stresses: The Predominant Influence
on Hydraulic Fracture Containment, J.P.T., pp. 653-664 (1984).
62. Van Eekelen, H. A.: Hydraulic Fracture Geometry: Fracture Containment in Layered Formations, S.P.E.J., pp. 341-349, (1982).
63. Coates, G. R., Denoo, S.A.: Mechanical Properties Program Using Borehole Analysis and
Mohrs Circle, SPWLA Paper Presented at the 22nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 23-36,
1981.
64. Teufel. L. W.: ln-Situ Stress State in the Mounds Test Well as Determined bv the Anelastic
StrainRecovery Method, SPE 13896, Low Permeability Gas Symposium, Dknver, May 19-22,
1985.
65. Tubman, K. M., Cheng, C. H., Cole, S.P., Toksoz, M. N.: Synthetic Full-Waveform Acoustic
Logs in Cased Boreholes, II Poorly Bonded Casing, Geophysics, vol. 51, no. 4, (April 1986)
pp. 902-913.
66. Onyia, E. C.: Relationships Between Formation Strength, Drilling Strength, and Electric Log
Properties, SPE 18166, 63rd Annual Technical Conference, Houston, October 2-5, 1988.
67. Dresser Atlas Log Interpretation Charts (1979).
68. Kowalski, J.: Formation Strength Parameters from Well Logs, SPWLA Sixteenth Annual Logging Symposium, June 4-7, 1975.
69. Van der Vlis, A. C.: Rock Classification by a Simple Hardness Test, Proc. Second Congress
Intl. Soc. Rock Mech. Belgrade (1970), pp. 23-30.
70. Holt, R. M., Ingsoy, P., Mikkelsen, M.: Rock Mechanical Analysis of North Sea Reservoir Formations, SPE Formation Evaluation (March 1989), pp. 33-38.
71. Kimmel, J. W.: Larger ID Tubulars Boost Deep Gas Well Production, Southwest Petroleum
Short Course, Lubbock.

11-61

Chapter 12: Chemical and Thermal Stimulation

When the formation will not produce at a rate equal to the expectations for the project, a stimulation
should be considered. There are two controls on the application of a stimulation treatment:
1 If permeability damage in the near wellbore area is blocking the production or injection of fluids,

and
2. If the permeability is low and the reservoir pressure is still high.

If either of the conditions are met and there are sufficient reserves remaining so that the increase in
production or injection will pay for the total cost of the stimulation, then the treatment can be justified.
Condition number one is the basic argument for a chemical treatment to remove damage. Condition
number two is the justification for fracturing (a few formations that cannot be fractured are chemically
treated to improve initial permeability). Current technology offers several methods of increasing production from an existing wellbore, the two most common of which are hydraulic fracturing and matrix
treating. This chapter covers the basic principles involved in matrix treating and some of the more
common treatments. Matrix treating may involve any of a series of operations. They divide into chemical and physical treatments.

Chemical stimulation is a collection of acid, gas, surfactant, reactant and solvent based treatments
that are intended to remove permeability damage or improve the natural matrix permeability through
nonfracturing methods. Physical treatments include perforating, perforation breakdown by nonproppant fracturing (limited in this concept to linking perforations, small explosive detonations, and operations such as underreaming).
The type of treatment selected will depend on the type and extent of the permeability damage or the
permeability increase necessary to meet design criteria. The most efficient use of a chemical stimulation treatment, as far as the wells productivity is concerned, is to remove formation damage in a nonfractured well or remove damage to the fracture proppant pack in a fractured well. The limit on matrix
stimulating an undamaged well can be seen by an examination of darcy law for radial flow through
beds in series.

where:

re

= drainage radius, ft

r,

= wellbore radius, ft

rl
K,

= permeability of improved zone, md

K2

= average reservoir permeability (unstimulated), md

= radius of zone of improved permeability, ft

12-1

Example 12.1
For a 15 md undamaged reservoir permeability on a 660 ft drainage area with a 6 in. wellbore, improving the permeability of the first 6 in. out from the wellbore face to a permeability of 1000 md would give
an average permeability of:

600
0.5
1
1 0 1 660
-In+-In1000 0.5 15
1

In-

Kavg

Kavg

7.19
(0.001) (0.693) + (0.067) (6.49)

Kavg

16.5 md

The productivity increase from a stimulation that produces this type of perm response would be:

0,

- =
Q,

16.5 (7.19)
15 (6.49)

1.21

If original productivity, Q,, were 100 BPD, then the improvement, Q2,would be 21 BPD or 21%.

Example 12.2
If the well had a zone of severe permeability damage of 0.005 md due to a mud cake, the effect of
even a 1/4 in. thick cake on the face of the formation would be:

600
0.48
1
0.5
1 660
In+
-Ino.005 0.48 15 0.5

In-

Kavg

0.84 md

and the effect on productivity would be:

If Q, had been 100 BPD, the production through the damage, QP, would be 5.6 BPD or only a few percent of the wells potential. If the damage in this example were removed, the increase would be over
1000% of the damaged rate. Therefore; the rate of increase possible in treating a damaged well
depends on the amount of initial damage.

12-2

The basic equation shows that the increase in total flow rate at a given reservoir driving pressure is
about 10 to 20% for a well with undamaged permeability, even if the permeability of the first few inches
of the formation is raised almost to infinity. This does not mean that chemical stimulations to remove
damage are not useful: when damage removal is considered, the improvements in productivity of the
well may jump several times. The key to the use of chemical stimulations is whether or not the formation is damaged and if the damage can be removed.

Selecting a Candidate Well

Before any stimulation treatment is considered for a well, some kind of pretreatment analysis should
be run to determine the need for that stimulation and the cause of permeability reduction if the well is
damaged. Descriptions of several of these methods are given in the chapter on diagnostics. If a
buildup test, for example, indicates that the deliverability of a well is impaired by formation permeability damage, then an analysis of well history and formation characteristics should be made to determine the type of permeability damage and its probable depth. If the damage can be removed by acid,
a stimulation to remove or bypass the effects of the damage may be chosen. Blindly trying an acid
treatment as a last-hope technique will usually result in large expense with little or no results. Poor
perforations, for example, will look like damage even on a buildup test but cannot be improved with
acidizing. A good evaluation is critical. Unfortunately, no test or set of tests can usually pinpoint the
type of damage; a deductive evaluation is usually required.
There are three basic types of chemical stimulation designs that encompass the vast majority of treatments: wellbore cleanup, matrix treatment, and fracture acidizing. The choice between matrix treating
and fracturing may best be made after reviewing the type of damage and the materials available for
removal. To achieve economical damage removal and select the right treatment, two factors must be
considered: the type of the damage and the extent of the damage. Removing the damage, regardless
of the treatment method used, depends on removing the damage throughout all the wellbore contact.
If the damage covering only part of the wellbore is removed, the treatment results will reflect a much
smaller production increase. For this reason, almost all damage removal treatments need to be
diverted away from the undamaged area to the damaged area.

Evaluation of Stimulations
Beyond the usual need for quality control in application of a treatment, there is also a need to determine how well the treatment worked. Although there are a myriad of ways to evaluate a treatment,
what is needed most is an accurate assessment of what the well is capable of producing. Secondary
evaluations can then be made to optimize treatment techniques on a basis of money spent versus
results achieved. Difficulties encountered include variations in treatment action resulting from well-towell differences of the formation.
With the potential limits in mind, the needed data are:
1. an accurate assessment of what the well could make,

2. accurate knowledge of what the well is producing now,

3. the best idea possible of how the treatment affects the wells performance on a step-wise basis.

The third element is often the most difficult to obtain. The most accepted way is use of a simulator that
combines treatment design with reservoir inflow and an economic module to forecast return on investment. The problem is that models usually treat formations as homogeneous; a necessity if the location, size and parameters of the formation flow paths are unknown. The only way out of this ignorance
(classic lock of information) is to spend the time and money to find out what is needed, at least to
some level of satisfaction based on your bank account and your patience. Most companies are simply
not willing or able or determine every piece of needed information, hence, assumptions and approximations are what we use.

12-3

Selective Stimulation
The diversion of stimulation treatments or even diversion of heat during thermal operations requires
the use of diverting agents or processes to keep the fluid from going entirely into the zone of highest
permeability. Injection of any clean fluid into a formation is analogous with the flow of electricity; both
electricity and fluid flow follow the path of least resistance. Given equal wettability of the pores, the
fluid will preferentially flow through the larger pores of the formation where the effects of trapped fluid
attractions at the wall are at a minimum. In this type of a system, injection of any fluid into a reservoir
will result in fluid flow into and through the easiest penetrated sections. For many reasons, this type of
injection is not acceptable. To prevent its occurrence, some type of removable diverting process is
needed to evenly apply the treatment volume.
Diverting vs. Fluid Loss Control

The difference between diverting a stimulation treatment and establishing fluid loss control on a stimulation treatment may be very similar in some cases and widely separated in others. Practically
speaking, diverting consists of allowing some of the treatment volume to penetrate the zone being
diverted and then slowly or rapidly diverting the remainder of the treatment volume to another zone.
The usual objective is to evenly treat the entire zone. Diverting is needed for permeability variations or
may be needed to seal off fractures. Fluid loss control is concerned with minimizing the volume of fluid
lost from a fracture treatment. Both diverting and fluid loss techniques may be used in either matrix
treating or fracture treating and in some cases, may use the same materials. For the purposes of this
discussion, fluid loss control will concern fracturing while diverting will focus on matrix treating.2
Candidates

Multiple pay zones require diverting since even thin separate zones are rarely of a similar permeabilAlso, multiple treatments in the same single stimulation require the use of diverters for proper
separation or fluid loss controL5
The permeability variances are typically determined by grain size and sorting, mineral growth, bonding
of the grains and the presence of natural or induced fractures. When a formation is composed uniformly of a similar size sand, without severe mineral growth in the pores, the permeability to a single
saturating fluid is at a maximum. Poorly sorted formations, those having a wide range of different sand
sizes, are lower permeability because the smaller grains fill in the open spaces in the matrix around
the larger grains. Mineral growths such as clays in the pores also reduce the area open to flow.
Pressure within the formation can also dictate the route of fluid movement. Given two separate intervals with contact to the same wellbore, one may have a much higher pressure than the other, resulting
in more difficulty in injecting into the higher pressure zone. If the higher pressure zone has been controlled during drilling (no crossflow) and is controlled by the injection pressure during the treatment,
the major injection of fluid will be into the lower pressure zone. The treatment may be very successful
in removing damage, but only in the lower pressure zone. On a buildup test, the well will still appear to
be damaged. The higher pressure zone (possibly the most productive) will remain damaged and may
not contribute significantly to flow. A similar problem is realized when two zones are treated and one
has been previously stimulated. The previously stimulated zone, especially one in a producing well
that has been hydraulically fractured, is probably at a lower pressure because of depletion and will
accept fluid from the wellbore much more readily than an unstimulated zone.
Although the advantages of a more even stimulation treatment are readily apparent (e.g., more complete processing and drainage of a pay), the advantages of either fluid loss or diverting in matrix treating can be overstated, particularly where large permeability variations exist. In normal operations, the
variance in permeability that can be easily treated by a diverting agent are about one order of magnitude of permeability lower than the highest permeability section of a well. This means that if the maximum permeability is 100 md, then the lowest permeability zone that can be effectively diverted to with
a large amount of fluid is about 10 md unless complete fluid loss control is established in the high
permeability zones. By using extremely efficient diverting or fluid loss materials (e.g., mechanical
diverting in a well with a good cement job and no fractures), it is possible to slowly drive fluid into

12-4

lower permeability sections. However, pay zones with permeabilities varying over two orders of magnitude are rarely known to contribute from the zones of the lowest permeability before the highest permeability zones are depleted. This phenomenon has been proven in several areas of secondary
recovery operations where 20-year old waterflood patterns (40-acre spacing) have been drilled in an
in-field drilling operation and virgin pressures were found in the middle of the pattern in the lowest permeability pays. In this example, the permeability variation was from about 50 md to less than 1 md.
These wells had been repeatedly treated with diverted and undiverted stimulation treatments. These
procedures made little difference in the low permeability sections in the 40-acre spacing.

Diverter Operation
There are several types of diverters, techniques for diverter usage, and various kinds of mechanical
apparatus that control fluid flow or fluid pressure within a wellbore. The diverters are described by
whether the diverter is mechanical (a downhole tool) or chemical.

Limited Entry (Pressure Differential Diverting)

Limited entry is the act of placing only a few perforations in the pay. With the limited entry technique,
several pays may be treated in one operation.6i7 The process may be accomplished by using balls in
stages to seal off perforations after stages of a treatment or by using back pressure developed by flow
through a limited number of perforations. When using back pressure, the pays are perforated with the
high permeability zones receiving only a few perforations and lower permeability zones being shot
with several perforations. In this manner, each zone is forced to take a share of the total fluid. This
procedure has some special applications in single treating of several stringers of a formation: however, the limited number of perforations may create high perforation friction (800 to 1500 psi differential pressures are often necessary for effective operation). In some treatments, the horsepower
necessary to overcome the perforation friction will be about 30 to 50% of the total horsepower used on
the job. For comparison of pressure drop, the flow rates through perforations at various pressures are

12-5

presented in Figure 12.1. Flow from the reservoir into the wellbore is also restricted in limited entry
completions and the well may appear to be damaged.8s9

A0

DcP9

0.4367

(Scott et al.)

Figure 12.1: A nomograph method of determining

perforation induced friction.
Mechanical Diverting

If a rig is available or if coiled tubing can be used, packers and selective injection wash tools often
present the best method of matrix stimulation diversion, provided that the cement job is adequate to
isolate the annulus and the well is not fractured. Most mechanical diverting tools are severely limited
because they function only at the face of the formation.lo Fractures, high permeability streaks and
even channels in the cement will defeat mechanical attempts to divert fluid flow.

The mechanical diverters include selective injection packers, packer and plug sets, and other isolation
techniques that protect a section of the well from fluid pressure. The selective injection packers or
straddle cup packers isolate a section of perforations for and makes sure at least one of the perforations in the straddled interval is open. The first requirement of mechanical methods is that the cement
sheath must be in good condition so that fluids do not channel behind the pipe. The benefits of
mechanical methods include positive opening of perforations and, usually, effective breakdown of the
formation. The process is particularly suited for small volume treatments. The tools can be obtained
with almost any length of perforated tubing between the isolation cups or packers. As little as 2 in. or
as much as 50 ft or more may be built into the apparatus at the surface.

12-6

Disadvantages to the process, besides the required use of a rig, are leaks produced by wear on the
cups and seals during multiple sets of the packer and the density segregation of different fluids in the
tubing at very low pump rates. Wiper plugs to separate fluids are useful if there is enough room in the
perforated tubing to catch the plugs without restricting fluid flow.
Isolation packers are the most versatile mechanical diverting devices because they can be used and
reset numerous times on the same run. The packoff seal is provided by cup seals, Figure 12.2, or
packer elements, Figure 12.3. Cup packers allow faster sets and higher flow rates while hydraulic set
packers allow better seals inside the wellbore. Packer and plug sets, Figure 12.4, are a common
approach to separation of multiple zones where a fracture stimulation is planned.

nuRRlAFlR

I k v e valve is jayed in

ocked closed position. Fluid

umped into annulus will flow

rouah annular bvpass of

emain open M i l e running in.

length of tool.

(Baker)

Figure 12.2: Schematic and operational sequence of a packer using cup seals.

Through tubing bridge plugs are devices that can be run through a tubing string on a wireline and
opened in the casing below the tubing to provide a place to start a cement or sand plug. A few
through tubing plugs are marginally effective without added sand or cement. The plugs are usually of
the petal basket, corrosion resistant fabric skin (resembles up-side down umbrellas) and bag type
designs. Plugs are set with wireline with from one to four or more runs required to set a plug. Cement
is then applied with a bailer. The limits on through tubing bridge plugs are dependent upon the design
and materials of construction. Models of the plug are available with vents and some, such as the bag
and fabric covered basket can be used in highly deviated wellbores. Inflatable plugs for both wireline
and coiled tubing application are currently available. These plugs will hold some pressure differential
but are a good base for sand or cement.
Ball sealers are a special method of controlling fluid flow.I2 These are small vinyl rubber covered balls
with a neoprene or syntactic foam center. The balls come in various densities and are designed to
plug a perforation that is taking fluid. By dropping several balls at once, a section of pay may be iso-

12-7

(Scott et al.)

Figure 12.3: Selective injection packer using

compression extended elements.

lated, allowing the next section treated without closing off part of the wellbore. The limitations, like the
mechanical devices, include the necessity of a good cement job. Additional requirements are round,
burr free perforation entry holes that will provide a good seal with the pipe. Also required is a little
understood quantity called ball action. Ball action refers to the ability of the ball to flow to and seat
on a perforation. The more fluid that a perforation is taking, the more likely the chance to seat a ball
sealer. For this reason, a well with a few perforations is easier to ball o f f than a well with many perforations that are taking the same quantity of fluid.
To travel with a fluid, the ball must be kept in suspension with the part of the fluid that is moving
towards the Perforation. Density differences between the ball and the fluid are the major reason for
separation. Density differences of as little as 0.05 (gramskc) are sufficient at low liquid flow velocities
to allow the ball to sink into the rat hole or float up and remain under the packer. For best application,
the fluid should be in turbulent flow or the density of the ball should match the density of the fluid. A
flow rate sufficient to keep the ball suspended with the liquid in the tubing will probably be too slow to
keep the same ball suspended in the same liquid in the casing unless the density of ball and fluid are
the same. Although the flow rate will be the same, the velocity in the casing may be lower by a factor
of 6 to 10 than in the tubing. This reduction in velocity is often enough to allow the balls to separate
from the fluid. To overcome the loss mixing in the casing, the density of the ball should be as close to
neutral as possible (within 0.05 g/cc). An example would be using a 1.1 g/cc density ball in 15% HCI
(density = 1.145 g/cc).
The rate of fluid flow into the perforation controls the attraction of a ball. The inflow of fluid sets up a
vortex around the entrance hole, which aids in attracting solid particles such as ball sealers. Although
experiments have shown that a little as 0.05 bbl/min is necessary to seat a ball sealer, the chances of
attracting and seating the ball increase with the flow rate into the perforation.

12-8

(Clementz et al., 1982)

Figure 12.4: An example of an isolation technique

using a retrievable packer and a retrievable bridge plug.
The final factor in ball action is the number of shots per foot that are open to fluid flow. The best ball
action is seen when there are few holes in the section, forcing a high rate of fluid injection into the
open perforations. This maximizing of flow contrast increases the flow velocity into the perf and thus
the vortex around the perf. Most operators that use ball sealers successfully perforate at one shot
every other foot up to a limit of 4 shots per foot depending upon the permeability of the formation. At
higher permeabilities, usually over 100 md, the higher number of shots per foot can be used. At any
given permeability, as the number of shots per foot goes up, the success with balls goes down. Guidelines for use of ball sealers are shown in Figure 12.5.
A second velocity factor affecting balls is the downward component of velocity during pumping at high
rates and especially with balls that are significantly heavier than the treating fluid. If the end of the tubing is spotted just above the perforations, a heavier ball will tend to retain the downward velocity of the
fluid and be carried into the rat hole. Spotting the tubing 40 to 100 ft above the top of the perforations
will allow the balls to spread out and slow to the velocity of the fluid in the casing.

Once the ball has been seated on the perforation there is little problem with the ball popping-off as
long as treatment pressure is toward the formation. Even high velocity flow immediately past the ball
will not dislodge the ball from the perforation.
The number of balls which are necessary to treat a pay zone depend upon the number of open perforations plus some excess number of balls. Estimates on number of balls needed for a successful operation range from 30% to 100% in excess of the number of perforations.
The balls are dropped in sets of one to a more than a dozen in most operations and are intended to
ball-off a section of perfs that are taking fluid and divert the injection to other perforations. Injection
of ball sealers into the treating fluid is done on the high pressure side of the pump through ball injectors. The best devices for ball injection are the positive displacement rod or plunger units. Star-wheel

12-9

Completion Length
(perfed interval)

Remarks on Use of Straddle Packers for Diverting

Good petformance with spacing on 1 ft tor breakdown. Spacing on 1 to 3 ft for

acidizing or solvent inj.
Spacing on 2 to 4 ft for breakdown or injection.
20-100ft
Spacing 4 to 10 ft for injection. Perf breakdown less effective because of large
> 100 ft
spacing. Number of sets per trip should be less than 50. Cup or seal life is
shortened by burrs around the perforations.
Perfs per ft
Remarks on Use of Neutral Density Ball Sealers
Best results from ball sealers. Use minimum 30% excess balls. Petformance
c1 to2
lessened by low perm, heavy balls, or low injection rate. Best results occur
when injection rate divided by the number of perforations is no more than
0.05 bbl/min/perf.
3 to 4
Marginal performance. Use 100% excess balls. Balls will not work well at this
shot density in low permeability formations.
>4
Ball sealers are not recommended.
Buoyant ball sealers with a density less than the carrier fluid are not recommended unless an interface
treatment is used.
Ball sealers heavier than 0.1 g/cc over the density of the carrier fluid are not recommended.
O-20ft

Figure 12.5: Selection Chart for Selective Injection PackerlBall Seal-

devices that depend on gravity feed of the ball to the slots in the wheel are less reliable and are not
practical for buoyant ball sealers.
Selection of the ball is usually confined to picking the density, although some size variation may also
be possible. The common ball sealer size is 7/8" diameter. Although this size is adequate for most
0.25" to 0.5" entrance holes produced by deep penetrating charges, the 7/8" balls are too small to be
used in the 0.75" to +0.9"holes produced by big hole charges with optimum casing/gun clearance.
Ball sealers also should not be used in most wells that have been reperforated, particularly if both perforating guns were zero degree phased. Ball sealers should not be used after a large volume proppant
frac because of possible casing hole enlargement by abrasion the p r ~ p p a n t . ' ~
In tests with tubing spotted above the perforations, the buoyant ball sealersl4 performed very poorly in
selectively shutting off perforations when used in a single fluid treating system with the packer set
immediately above the perforations. The buoyant balls (0.9 and 0.95) floated past perforations taking
as much as 0.1 BPM. Even when the ball entered the vortex created by the perforation flow, there was
only a small chance of seating the ball. Once the balls were seated, there was no problem keeping
them on the perforation as long as flow was maintained. Whenever the pump was stopped, the balls
immediately came off the perforations. As the hole diameter increases from the norm of 0.4"toward
0.6"or larger, the standard 0.75" or 0.87" balls may become wedged in the hole.
Heavier density balls are commonly used in fracturing operations where a very large amount of mixing
goes on and flow rates are extremely high. Ball densities from 1.1 to 1.3 are available. Some operators feel the heavier weights are necessary to prevent the balls from flowing back to the surface once
the treating pressure has been released and the well comes back on flow.
When the well flows back after a treatment with either lightweight ball sealers or neutral density ball
sealers, a ball catcher should be installed in the line to assist in catching the balls prior to flowing the
well fluids through the choke. A device of this type is shown in Figure 12.6.15

12-10

(Gabriel & Erbostoesser, SPE)

Figure 12.6: A ball sealer catcher to prevent choke blockage.

Chemical Divsrters

The chemical diverters include a wide range of products that are designed to work in one of three
methods; filling the perforation, sealing the perforation, or promoting diversion by means of viscosity.
The fill-type diverters, which include such materials as naphthalene, benzoic, graded salts, sand, and
other large particulate material are designed to completely fill the perforation tunnel and create a second pack within the tunnel that will divert the flow of fluid into the formation. A sketch of fill diverter
operation is shown in Figure 12.7. The flow of fluid into the perf is not completely stopped, but the
treating pressure is raised by resistance of flowing through the fill in the perforation tunnel and the
treating fluid may be diverted to another perforation. Diversion with this type of a product is possible
even where the permeability of the diverter system is higher than the permeability of the formation,
since the area of the perforation has been reduced from the perforation tunnel wall area to the
entrance area of the perf. These types of diverters do have a lower limit on the formation permeability
at which they are effective. The permeability of the Yill matrix must act as a restriction in the amount
of flow that a perforation will take. In very low permeability, non-naturally fractured formations (k c 10
md), these diverters will not work well since the permeability of the diverter pack will still be much
higher than the permeability of the formation. The exception is natural fractures that open wider at
treating pressure. The approximate effective permeability limits for various diverter packs and an estimation of where they are effective is contained in Figure 12.8. Loading information for the number of
pounds per gallon and pounds per perf is also reported. This data was established using a laboratory
model of the flow system and takes into account the approximate permeability of the formation. Examples of the rate of fluid flow reduction for 100 mesh sand, granular salt, benzoic acid and naphthalene
are shown in Figure 12.9.16 Note that the final fluid flow after treating is not zero. The data shown in
the figure demonstrate that the larger particulate diverters all have a pack permeability that allows a
reduction in fluid flow into a zone but does not stop the flow entirely.
The second type of chemical diversion is forming a seal on the face of the formation. The diverters in
this category include organic resin dispersions and particulates up to 10 to 70 microns. The permeability of the barrier created by these materials is nearly zero. These materials are most effective on
matrix fluid loss from either matrix or frac treatments but lose effectiveness when the formation is naturally fractured. The products form a thin seal, Figure 12.1 0, by trapping of the micron-sized solid particles against the permeable face of the formation when the liquid enters the formation. The organic
resin slurry uses oil soluble, organic material in a water suspension to form a mud-cake or seal on
any surface where fluid injection
Like any fluid leakoff control additive, the speed with
which resin products can control leakoff is dependent upon their concentration, Figure 12.1 1, and the
amount of leakoff. The barrier or dehydration cake (similar to a mud cake) formed is very thin but
impenetrable to flow toward the formation. A density of 1.04 g/cc allows easy placement without separation problems. The drawback with the organic resin slurries are that they are concentration and sur-

12-11

Figure 12.7: Diverting with a fill type diverter. Although the diverter
pack has a higher permeability than the formation, a flow
resistance can still be created since the exposed area of
the diverter filled perforation is much smaller than the
exposed area of the open perforation.
As formation permeability decreases, the effect of fill type
diverting is lessened.

Diverter

Decomposition

o;;;/T

I 2; 1

Soluble
In

Concentration
Use

114 to 1
112 to 1

114 to 1
0.032 to 0.1
*.

..
.*
I

1 to 2.5
112 to 5 gal fluid
per 1000 gal fluid
114 to 10 Ib per
1000 gal fluid
10 to 30 Ib per

1000 gal fluid

'Not suitable
"Will not fill a perforation, acts only on or in matrix of formation
"'May be only marginally effective at best.

Figure 12-8: Guidelines for Diverter Usage in Non-Fractured Formations

face area dependent and do not work exceptionally well in fractures (where the surface area that must
be sealed is extremely large).
The diverter should not be readily soluble in the liquid being used for transport. Oil base diverters such
as most organic resin dispersions, for example, cannot be used in acid containing mutual solvents. In
these cases, an inert carrier fluid should be used for the diverter stage carrier. Clean up of the resin
barriers normally proceeds easily since almost all of the material is halted at the face of the formation
and the layer of resin will not hold pressure when the differential is from the formation toward the well-

12-12

(King & Hollingsworth, SPE 8400)

Figure 12.9: Flow reductions (in sand packs) possible with various diverters.

(King & Hollingsworth,SPE 8400)

Figure 12.10: Photograph of the barrier formed by dehydration (by leakoff) of organic resin slurry while
flowing water through a sand pack.

bore. Most of the organic resins are soluble in either condensate or crude oil and will be removed relatively easily from the surface of the formation. A second type of small particulate solid that may be
used as a slurry contains inorganic material. The micron sized inorganic particulates will damage the
formation to some extent and their clean up depends on either removal by reverse pressure or slow
decomposition of the inorganic particle. Caution is advised in using this type of a product.
When naturally fractured formations are treated, a particle type diverter followed by or mixed with a filter cake type diverter should be considered if complete shutoff of the zone is necessary.

12-13

IGH PERMEABILITY RANGE

-54
H

U
I

1gaL/1,000 gal.

3
a
8

E
W

5
4

10 g a l R, #y) gaL

5 gal. I l , WO gal.

loo0

1 TOTAL VOLUME WATER T~ROUGHPACK (ccs)

0
60
120
TOTAL VOLUME WATER THROUGH PACK (gallwrtlft.4

(King & Hollingsworth, SPE 8400)

Figure 12.11: The fluid leakoff control provided by organic resin slurries is dependent on resin concentration as shown in the
pilot. Note that the concentration affects only the speed
of leakoff control, not the shutoff potential.

Viscous gels are a third method of diverting that can be effective in the wellbore, on the face of the formation or in the formation. The viscous gels that are available at the current time, are usually polymer19v20or surfactant gelled waters or foams.21 They make injection of the fluid into the zone more
difficult because of the viscous fluids resistance to flow. By consideration of the Darcy Law, one only
has to increase the viscosity of a fluid from-one to 100 centipoise, for example, to see that these fluids
radically reduce the amount of fluid lost to the formation. Drawbacks to the viscous polymer fluids are
the insoluble debris that are in most polymer systems and the residue remaining after breakdown.
Cleanup of deeply placed polymer systems can also be slow unless a properly functioning breaker is
used.
Foamed systems, where a gas phase is dispersed in a liquid phase, diverts by being difficult to flow
through the f~rmation.~-~
Gas-in-water foam is an emulsion and are more viscous than the unviscosified normal treating fluids. At least part of their resistance to flow comes from a process governing
droplet or bubble deformation, known as the Jamin e f f e ~ t . 2This
~ effect describes the difficulty in forcing the droplet or bubble to deform sufficiently to flow through the pore, Figure 12.12.
It is not unusual to see a combination of two or more of the described systems or products to achieve
better fluid loss control, especially where formation permeability variances are large.2426
The carrier fluid for a chemical diverter is of prime i m p ~ r t a n c eThe
. ~ ~carrier fluid must be inert to the
product and should not modify the size of the product. In most stimulations the diverter or fluid loss
additive must be carried by the treating fluid. This adds another limit to the selection of the diverter.
interface Treatments

The interface technique is a procedure for directing placement of fluids or divert er^.'^ This process
uses a heavy fluid and a lighter, normally immiscible fluid. A brief list of the fluid densities available for
this work is shown in Figure 12.14.

12-14

-qwHIGH PERMEABlLlTY
4

Water

Water

LOW PERMEABILITY

Water +
(Penny)

Figure 12.12: Mechanism of fluid loss control during an immiscible phase injection

Diverters or ball sealers with a density between the two fluids may also be used. If a diverter is used
and the density of the two fluids are selected correctly, the diverter must be localized at the interface
of the fluids. The treatment can be used with or without tubing in the well when immiscible fluids are
used, although the control of the interface is made easier if the tubing is spotted through the zone to
be treated. When the tubing extends through the zone, the position of the interface in the annulus can
be controlled by injecting heavier fluid into the tubing and lighter fluid into the annulus.
The position of the interface may be monitored by the use of a gamma ray tool in the tubing if the
annular fluid (upper fluid) is tagged with a tracer that is not soluble in the second fluid.
The position of the interface does not identify the injection site of the fluid unless injection rates into
both annulus and tubing are equal and there is only one zone taking fluid. If only one of the fluids is
being injected, and the other side shut in, the position of the interface only signifies that injection into
the reservoir is taking place either above or below the interface depending on which fluid (annular or
tubing) is being injected.
DiverterlFluid Loss Control Stages

Placement of the materials within the treating volumes of a stimulation treatment requires information
on the extent of leakoff into the formation at vmious times. In an acid fracturing treatment, the use of
fluid loss additives must occur early and frequently during the job for an optimum operation. Acid
increases the permeability of the formation by reaction and thus increases both the number and the
severity of fluid leakoff sites. To produce deeply penetrating acid fractures, initial acid leakoff must be
stopped and all subsequent deterioration of the fluid loss additive on those sites must be minimized.
Acid fracturing requires more fluid loss control than a fracturing treatment or other type of non acid
stimulation. In stimulations that use acid, the fluid loss additive is added on a regular basis either in
closely spaced stages or continuously in small quantities.
Placement of the stages is often done without much formation information and normally accounts for a
waste of a large amount of the treating volume, especially in the later part of the job. The optimum
place for a stage in an acid fracturing job is when the bottom hole injection pressure begins to decline
during a steady rate treatment. In fracturing, this pressure decline is most often caused by a reduction
in back pressure and signals a reduction in the amount of fluid traveling down the length of a fracture.
This indicates leakoff (usually severe) through the walls of the fracture.
In matrix acidizing, the diverter stage should be pumped when the acid causes a reduction in injection
pressure by increasing the permeability (or removing damage) in the zone into which it is flowing. This
pressure reduction may often be seen on the surface pressure recorder as a slow decrease followed
by a stable pressure when the damage has been removed. The diverter stage should be pumped
when the pressure begins to decline; this will allow the acid in the tubing to continue going into the

12-15

Fluid

Pressure
Unit Depth

Density

Figure 12.14: Gradients and Densities

treated zone to finish the cleaning job and then divert the next volume of acid to a new zone. If the
diverter is properly selected and placed, the surface pressure should rise slightly as acid is injected in
a damaged zone then decline as a new interval is cleaned up.
Practically, and especially in deep wells, this method of treating is difficult due to the large volume of
acid in the tubing and the slow rate of displacement. The best method of designing diverter stages for

12-16

these deeper wells is to examine treating reports and pressure charts of jobs on offset wells or wells
with similar damage conditions. Select volumes for acid stages which approximate the quantity of acid
needed to reduce the injection pressure. The quantity of diverter and the volume of diverter stage may
be selected by examining treating reports to see if the diverter stages were effective. To place the
stages in the exact spot in the treatment where fluid loss control is needed would require advance
knowledge of the exact leakoff behavior of the formation. This information is not available for any but
the most homogeneous formations. The position of the first stage in the job may be approximated by
examining the treating records of an offset well. In wells with damage, there may not be enough consistency between wells to make this process useful.
If the well is shallow and the injection rate is high or the treatment is fairly large, the surface pressure
can be monitored to know when to start a stage. An illustration of this technique is shown in
Figure 12.1 5. This example dramatically shows the fluctuation of injection pressure and fluid loss in a
fracturing well. It is interesting to note that the 100 mesh sand used as a fluid loss control in this example has a pack permeability of 200 to 800 md, yet is able to reduce leakoff through open natural fractures in a formation with a matrix permeability of 1 to about 15 md. The effective contrast is between
the fracture flow capacity and the sand pack, not between the sand pack and the formation.

f h l f l l Y G F01YA1101: -ACID
---?AD

I
1
I

E A U PAD STAGE
CONSISTS Of 1000
CA1 WITW 1 ))( f l l f
I f S H SAND EACH ACID
SIACE. 1 5 0 0 SAL

15

ao '

a s'

'

40

'41 '

' I

TIYI. IlNUltS

(Coulter et al., SPE)

Figure 12.15: Plot of bottom-hole pressure change during constant pump rate
treatment of Strawn Reef Formation.

HCllHF Treatment Diversion

HCI/HF treatments pose a special problem for diverting since in most cases, an HCI preflush is
needed prior to the HCI/HF acid injection. If the HCI is not ahead of the HCVHF acid in each zone it
enters, damage from reaction of HF with calcium carbonate (results in CaF2, a precipitate) or formation waters may occur. The easiest and most effective way to divert HCVHF jobs is to treat each stage
as a separate treatment. The HCI and HCVHF acids are followed by a stage of 2% NH4CIwater with a
fluid loss additive. Salt should not be used as a diverter in HCI/HF acid, because it will create a
sodium fluoride precipitate.
Recommendations
The suggested loading rate of diverter materials for matrix operations were shown previously. These
loading rates are only a guide; actual use may have to be tailored to achieve optimum performance.
Very large (over 1 Ib/gal) loadings of flake diverters should be avoided due to potential bridging problems in the tubing.
The common diverters are listed in the Appendix 12.A.

12-17

Cleanup

Regardless of the type of material that is injected as a fluid loss or diversion additive, very careful
thought must be given to cleaning the material from the formation or the fracture pack.28 If the material
cannot be removed easily during the course of the well clean up, much or all of the advantages produced by the stimulation will be completely lost. Common solvents are available for almost all of the
commercially available diverters and fluid loss additives used in well stimulation.
Cleanout of diverters from the well is often best accomplished by backflow at high pressure differentials or extended production. In tests on drilling mud and diverters on sandstone cores it has been
determined that approximately 80% of the initial permeability is usually attained when the core was
backflowed at a pressure differential at least equal to the pressure used to place the mud or diverter.
Final cleanup may depend on the diverter used and the type of overflush. In most cases, the overflush
should be a solvent for the diverter.
The worst problem encountered in removal of fluid loss control additives is in the drilling additives.
Lost circulation material (LCM) has been a historic problem because of drillers insistence on using
cheap materials to control fluid loss sites. In non pay sections the removal of these materials is of little
importance; however, when the fluid loss zone occurs in a pay, additives such as paper, leather, grain,
plastic, or other insoluble materials absolutely should not be used. Techniques for control of the most
severe fluid loss zones are a~ailable.~
Packoff Techniques

Packoff techniques are normally used to isolate producing perforations from a treatment on other perforations where bridge plugs and other mechanical devices are impractical. These packoff techniques
include particulate fill and gelled plugs.
Crosslinked gelled plugs of several thousand centipoise viscosity are typically high concentration
polymer pills at a loading rate of 100 Ibs or more of polymer per 1000 gal of water. The polymer is
pumped with a time or temperature delay crosslinker that will render a solid plug. The polymer system
can be stabilized for long time stability. Problems with the gelled plugs have been with failure of breaking systems and cleanup of residue. Bacterial degradation may also be a problem.
Technology of Bridging

The size range of particles necessary for control of fluid entry into a formation will depend on the pore
size range or fracture size in the formation. Data from gravel packing studies has shown that spheres
can be bridged on an opening twice their diameter.30 In other tests, particles as small as 1/3 the opening diameter may rapidly form bridges on an opening. In large particle concentrations such as sand
slurries, bridging may even occur with particles as small as 1/6 the opening diameter. In general, the
larger the particle, the faster the bridge is formed and the more stable it is. Use of polymer gels to
transport the particles or a second bridging material may also have an effect on bridging3 As particle
size decreases in relationship to opening size, the ease of forming a bridge also decreases. More
rapid bridging can usually be achieved when a wide range of sizes are used. The larger particles will
bridge off on the opening and the smaller particles will bridge off on the remaining openings between
the large particles and the original opening. This analogy works for pores or natural fractures.
Depth of Diversion

Once the fluid enters the formation, regardless of the point of entry, the path of the fluid will be the
path of least resistance. The natural tendency will be to flow toward the region of lowest pressure
through the most permeable path available. For this reason, the near wellbore is most affected by the
action of the diverter. Without barriers to flow between the high perm and lower perm areas, most
diversion attempts will simply open new channels of permeability from the affected perforations to the
zone of highest perm.

12-18

Chemical Stimulation Techniques

Acidizing

Of the four most widely used acids, hydrochloric acid (also referred to as muriatic) is the most important due to its high carbonate dissolving capacity and low cost.
Hydrochloric acid reacts with carbonate formations to form water, carbon dioxide gas, and calcium
chloride, as shown in the following schematic.
HCI Acid

+ CaC03 Limestone -+w2

Water

+ CO2 Carbon Dioxide

+ CaC12 Calcium Chloride

At bottomhole pressures, the CO2 produced is dissolved in water and remains trapped until the pressure is lowered.
One thousand gallons of 15% HCI acid will dissolve 1840 Ibs of limestone (10 cubic ft3 if porosity =
O).32 The products formed are 2000 Ibs of calcium chloride, 8010 Ibs (6600 standard ft3) of carbon
dioxide gas, and 333 Ibs (40 gallons) of water. The total volume of water remaining after complete
spending of the acid would contain 15% (by weight) calcium chloride. Limestone dissolved by 4 m3 of
15% HCI would be 884 kg with 961 kg calcium chloride, 187 m3 CO2 at standard conditions and
160 kg (0.15 m3) water produced.
The reaction for dolomite is similar to the reaction for carbonate, but slower at temperatures of under
200F (93C).

HC1+ MgCa (CO,)

Acid Dolomite

'H,'O

+ CO, + CaCl, + MgCl,

Water Carbon Calcium Magnesium

Dioxide Chloride Chloride
Gas

The reaction of 1000 gallons of 15% hydrochloric on dolomite would consume 1700 Ibs of rock (9.6 ft3
if porosity = 0) and produce 1000 Ibs calcium chloride, 870 Ibs magnesium chloride, 6600 standard ft3
of carbon dioxide, and 40 gallons of water. Dolomite dissolved by 4 m3 of 15% HCI would be 817 kg
with 480 kg calcium chloride, 41 8 kg magnesium chloride, 187 m3 CO2 at standard conditions, and
160 kg (0.15 m3) water produced.
As better inhibitors have been developed, the higher concentrations of hydrochloric acid have come
into greater use. The use of 28% HCI for fracturing provides about twice the dissolving capacity at less
than twice the cost of 15% HCI. The 28% HCI is normally used for acid fracturing in carbonates.

Although HCI reacts readily with the calcium and magnesium carbonates, other acid reactions occur
during the treatment that can create damage if not anticipated. Iron, contained in such forms as rust,
pyrite, pyrrhotite, siderite, magnetite, and hematite, is a prime problem reactant with HCI because of
the possibility of iron hydroxide precipitation from spent acid. Normally, only magnetite and hematite
(+3 valence states) are troublesome since they precipitate at a pH of 2.2; however, the other iron compounds (+2 valence states) can also precipitate if the acid spends completely (pH 2 7) Before selection of an iron sequestering agent, a good understanding of the iron precipitation problem should be
acquired. Other possible reactants with HCI include iron sulfide (a corrosion product present on tubulars in sour gas areas) and HCI-soluble scales and clays.

12-19

HWHF: HCI/HF is a mixture of hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids. This combination is used exclusively in sand reservoirs that contain very little calcium. Acids containing hydrofluoric are not used in
calcium containing reservoirs since one of the reaction products, calcium fluoride, is a precipitate.

HF

CaCO,

Hydrofluoric Calcium
Acid
Carbonate

CaF,

Calcium
Fluoride

H,O

CO,

Water

Carbon
Dioxide

The calcium fluoride is an insoluble product and cannot be removed with normal treating processes.
To minimize harmful by-products when designing an HCI/HF acid stimulation, it is necessary to use a
hydrochloric acid preflush and a gas, HCI acid, ammonium chloride water, or hydrocarbon afterflush.
In dry gas reservoirs or elsewhere that oil would create relative permeability effects, the HCI/HF acid
should be followed by ammonium chloride water or gas. HCI/HF acid treatments should not be preceded or followed by waters weighted with sodium chloride, calcium chloride, or potassium chloride.
These salts, although relatively inert, can react with any unspent hydrofluoric acid to form insoluble
fluoride precipitates. A water solution of ammonium chloride can be used as a preflush or afterflush for
HCVHF acids without creating insoluble by-products.
In formations where the calcium content is low (i.e., less than 1O%), a preflush of hydrochloric acid is
required to remove the calcium which is in the pore throats. In formations of over 15% calcium compounds, HCI/HF acids should not normally be used.
The reaction schematic for HF on an idealized clay is shown below.

HF

A1,Si,'0,6(OH),

Hydrofluoric
Acid

"Clay"

H,Si'F,
Hexafluro
Silicic
Acid

AlF,

Aluminum
Fluoride

H,'O
Water

The most common concentration of HCVHF is 12% HCI and 3% HF. In formations that can be damaged by HF by-products, half strength HCVHF, 6% HCI and 1.5% HF, is popular. HF acid spends rapidly on clays and silts. In formations containing 10% clays, the HF acid will probably penetrate no
further than about 8 in. from the wellbore and removes approximately 120 Ib (54.5 kg) of clay per
1000 gallons of the HCI/HF mix before being completely spent. If damage due to clay or to completion
fluids extends deeper than the live HCI/HF acid can reach, it is advisable to consider an in situ HF acid
or a fracture treatment with proppant and water or oil-base fluid. HCI/HF is also very
useful for removing drilling mud cakes and dispersing mud.

HF Acid Spending Rates

Recently, work by Gdanski has illustrated potential problems with HCI/HF by-products when zeolites
(a reactive mineral) and a few other, highly reactive clays or minerals are encountered. In the work,
Gdanski shows that aluminum from the minerals precipitates as the acid spends (pH rises). The precipitation seems to be affected by both the aluminum concentration and the pH: themselves a function
of HF acid content and total acid content, respectively. To minimize potential precipitation and formation damage, the HF content is reduced and HCL is increased when acidizing some formations. Typical of the acids is an 7-1/2 to 10% HCL with a 1% HF.
Acetic and Formic: Organic acids are used in stimulations where their slower reaction time and ease
of inhibition are required. The acids most frequently used are formic and acetic. The carbonate dissolving capacity of the 10% organic acids is regulated by a reaction equilibrium between the reactants, the product CO2 "gas" and the pressure. At pressures of over 500 psi, and up to about 160F,
10% acetic will dissolve approximately 420 Ibs of calcium carbonate per thousand gallons
(202 kg/4 m3), while the 10% formic will dissolve roughly 750 Ibs of calcium carbonate per

12-20

1000 gallons (360 kg/m3). At atmospheric pressure, the 10% acetic will consume 740 Ibs of calcium
carbonate per thousand gallons (355 kg/4 m3) and the 10% formic will dissolve 940 Ibs of calcium carbonate per 1000 gallons (451 kg/4 m3). Since the spending rate of the organic acid and total material
consumed is controlled by an equilibrium with temperature and pressure as two of its controls, live
acid will usually be returned to the surface following a treatment with organic acid (especially at temperatures below 160F).

On a basis of cost per Ib of carbonate dissolved, the acetic acid is roughly five times the cost of the

hydrochloric, while the formic acid is about three times the cost of HCI acids. In high-temperature formations, the cost factor between organics and HCI acid narrows due to the cost of special inhibitors
necessary for HCI acids at high temperatures.

Formic and acetic acids are not normally used at over 15% strength due to solubility limits of calcium
formate or calcium acetate, the chief byproduct. The reaction schematic of formic acid is shown below.

HCOOH + CaCO,
Formic
Acid

+ Ca(COOH), + CO, + 'H,'O

Limestone

Calcium
Formate

Carbon Water
Dioxide

The reaction of acetic acid is similar except calcium acetate is formed instead of calcium formate.
Although the organic acids may be used by themselves for stimulation at high temperatures, it is often
advantageous to use the acids in a mixture with hydrochloric acid.

Solvents
Solvents cover a broad range of materials that dissolve and disperse deposits and damage problems
in the well. The most common solvent is fresh or brine water, used to remove salt, or as a base fluid to
carry surfactants, alcohols, mutual solvents and other products. Alcohols are a special class of solvents since they have solubility in both oil and water. Hydrocarbon solvents are also used with regularity.35-38These materials include crude oil and condensate, plus refined oils such as diesel, kerosene,
xylene and toluene. The reasons for the use of solvents are that acid has little or no effect on may
damaging deposits. Selecting a solvent usually requires some testing with the damage deposit. A few
selected organic solvents are shown in Figure 12.1 6.
Fluid

Used to Remove

Methyl aiconoI
Diesel
Kerosene
Toluene
Xylene (meta)
Xylene (para)
Xylene (ortho)
Xylene bottoms
Naphtha
Oil
Gasoline
~

Figure 12.16: Common Organic Solvents Used in Treating

12-21

Gases
Although not usually considered as treating fluids, carbon dioxide gas and nitrogen gas are being
increasing used as additives to stimulation treatments and by themselves to help remove damage.
Gasses in an injected fluid provide assistance in fluid recovery by expansion in the reservoir when the
surface treating pressure is released. The expanding gases not only propel liquids from the reservoir,
they also provide a gas lift to produce the fluids up the tubing. Gas injection can also help restore gas
saturation in water blocked gas wells by driving the water out of the pores of the formation. A special
use of carbon dioxide gas has been in CO2 huff and puff treatments where the CO2 is injected into a
heavy oil zone to swell the oil and reduce oil viscosity as well as providing driving energy to produce
the oil.

Surfactants
Hundreds of chemicals are available as surfactants, and each has a use in removing or preventing a
damage problem. Surfactants are used in concentrations of 5 ppm to 1% or more in a carrier fluid that
may be water, acid, or oil. Their properties are such that they congregate at the high energy interface
or surface and influence the formation and stability of emulsions, foams, sludges, surface tension,
particle suspension, surface wetting, scale growth, paraffin precipitation, and film interactions. Surfactants are common in most treatments but tend to be overused. Surfactants should be selected on the
basis of carefully run, lab or field tests and only the essential surfactants used in any job. Surfactants
can react with each other when several types are mixed.

Reactants
Reactants are a group of materials that enter into chemical reactants with materials in the well but are
not acids. These materials include bactericides, oxidizers such as bleach and chlorine dioxide, chelating agents, and others. They usually have a limited number of specific purposes and must be matched
very carefully with well conditions. Their use in the oilfield is steadily increasing.

Treatment Types
A wellbore cleanup treatment is used to remove cement residue, drilling mud particles, scale, and perforation debris which cause injection face damage. Solvents such as diesel, xylene, kerosene and
alcohols are common as well as the mineral and organic acids. The acids used in these stimulations
are normally hydrochloric acid, HCI-HF acid (a mixture of hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids) and,
less frequently, organic acids such as acetic and formic. The concentration of these acids for the
cleanup treatment varies from 3% to 15%. The wellbore cleanup treatment, using either acid or solvent, is administered in the form of a soak or a slow injection, and the volume of the treatment is only
slightly larger than the tubular volume across the treatment zone. The solvents such as xylene are
often useful if there is paraffin, asphaltene or oil sludge damage. Alcohols and mutual solvents are
used to break emulsions, strip oil coatings, remove water blocks and alter wettability.
After the stimulation or cleanout has been accomplished, the solvent or acid should be produced from
the wellbore by either swabbing, pumping, displacement with nitrogen, or allowing the reservoir fluids
to backflow the material. Only in injection wells which handle large (>500 bbl/day) volumes of water
should the treatment be displaced into the formation without attempting to backflow. Note: Some wells
cannot be backflowed and the treating fluids must be injected into the reservoir and displaced without
return.
Matrix treating is normally used to increase the permeability of the formation immediately surrounding
the wellbore or to remove permeability damage that is beyond the injection face. Matrix treating with
solvents is useful for removing almost any hydrocarbon base damage in the pores. The reaction rate
of solvents in the matrix is usually slow and is limited by the amount of solvent that can be injected
into the pores to contact the damage. In matrix acidizing, the acid is also often used as a carrier to
transport surfactants such as clay stabilizers or emulsion breakers. The minimum volume of acid
which should be used in a sandstone matrix acidizing treatment will depend upon the type and depth

12-22

of damage, the permeability of the formation and the general response of the acid on the formation.
Large acid volumes on high permeability sandstones can be beneficial.39
Overflush volumes on low permeability zones should be only to the perforations. If large volumes of
acid or overflush are used on low permeability zones, the formation may be damaged since acid reaction products may come out of solution before the acid leaves the formation.

Damage Removal
During pumping in matrix acidizing, as in any treating procedure, useful data on treating effectiveness
can be deduced from surface pressure recorders. It should be remembered with any surface pressure,
especially during changeovers from one fluid to another, that the pressure shown on the recorder
reflects the injection pressure of the fluid currently at the perforations minus the hydrostatic pressure.
The friction pressure, if any, increases the surface pressure. Any change in density of fluid in the tubing will change the surface pressure at constant injection rate. Thus, any change that an injected fluid
makes on the formation will not be indicated by the pressure recorder until the newly injected fluid
reaches the perforations, usually several minutes after the pumping begins. With most acid systems in
permeability damage removal treatments, the pressure recorder may register a small rise (compared
to water or preflush injection) as the acid enters the formation followed by a gradual decrease to some
stabilized pressure. The timing and the sharpness of the surface pressure drop is determined by depth
and amount of the damage and the reactiveness of the acid toward that damage. For example, calcium carbonate scale damage can be removed relatively quickly while particle stabilized emulsions,
deep clay damage and thick scale deposits are removed very slowly.
Viscous stable emulsions and water blocks clean up very slowly and may require soaking or a slow
injection with the mutual solvent/acid system. Emulsion breaking in the pores of the formation is vastly
different from a simple beaker demonstration showing breaking of the emulsion by surfactants. Breaking emulsions (and removing water blocks) requires contacting each droplet of the emulsion with the
treating fluid. A long cleanup time, or even repeat treatments in the case of a large amount of emulsion, is normal. For more information, see the description of on emulsions in the chapter on formation
damage.
If a continuous pressure rise is noted during the injection of a clean fluid, this may be an indication of
detrimental acid reactions occurring in the formation. These acid reactions may include formation of
sludges, release of migrating particles, clay swelling, creation of emulsions, or other reactions. If the
pressure climbs sharply and continuously for several minutes, pumping should be stopped and the
well backflowed. Samples of this backflow should be caught for analyses of iron content, acid
strength, and presence of emulsions and solids.40 If the formation cannot be broken down, the location of the perforations should be checked. If the perforations appear to be at the right depth, reperforating is suggested.

In most instances of acid creating damage in oil wells, emulsions or sludges are usually at fault. The
sludge or emulsions formed between acid and a few crude oils are worst when iron and asphaltenes
are present and are very viscous and stable.41142
In gas wells, the most likely damage from an acid treatment will be water blocks created by the spent
acid. If water blocks are known to form in the subject formation, either mutual solvents or alcohols
should be added to the entire treatment.
If the injection pressure climbs rapidly during the treatment and the well will not backflow, formation
damage, or mechanical problems may have occurred. Checks of the mechanical equipment (including
packer location) and reactivities of oil, acid (with additives), and formation water should be made.
If the surface pressure decreases rapidly during the treatment or the well goes on LLvacuum(i.e.,
takes fluid rapidly with hydrostatic pressure only), (1) matrix permeability is being increased (or damage removed), (2) natural fractures are being enlarged, or (3) the formation has been fractured. This

12-23

behavior is very common on low pressure wells and is the cause of large losses of fluid to the format i ~ n . ~ ~

Backflow: After completion of a treatment, the returns in most cases are flowed back to a pit or tank
as rapidly as possible. The rapid flow carries suspended particles, emulsions, and spent acid that
would be difficult to produce without substantial driving energy. In the case of slow backflow from a
reservoir with low driving energy, the recovery of fluids may be aided by swabbing, nitrogen gas or
CO2 gas in the fluid or preflush, or by artificial lift. Regardless of the recovery method, in most
instances the stimulation fluids should be recovered as rapidly as feasible. Only with some unconsolidated formations or in proven instances of migrating fines caused by high flow rates should a slow
recovery technique be used. Migrating fines may be identified with a laboratory test that plots permeability response with increasing and decreasing driving pressure and flow rate.

Reaction Rate Factors

Temperature
Acid reaction rate on most acid soluble materials increases with temperature because of a lowering of
viscosity. Hydrochloric acid reacts with limestone almost instantaneously and is affected in the temperature range of 60F (16C) to 200F (93C) only by the transfer of the acid to the formation and the
transfer of soluble by-products away from the reaction site. As the treatment temperatures increase,
the viscosity of the acid is lowered, allowing the acid to move into smaller pores and cracks. Also at
higher temperatures the reaction by-products are more readily soluble in the HCI acid which aids in
the transfer of by-products away from the reaction site.

Pressure
The reaction rate of acid is reduced as the pressure rises from atmospheric to about 500 psi
(3450 kPa). Any pressure increase above 500 psi has very little effect on the rate of reaction of the
acid with the formations. Since nearly all acidizing treatments are performed at pressures over
500 psi, the effects of pressure changes will not enter into the treatment design.

Area Volume Ratio

Area-to-volume ratio is the major factor controlling spending time of the acid on a particular formation.
The area-to-volume ratio is the surface area of the formation which is in contact with a given volume of
acid. The ratio is inversely proportional to the width of the fracture or the pore diameter if the treatment
is a matrix acidizing treatment. Area-to-volume ratios may range up to 20:l in a 1/10in. wide fracture,
200+:1 in an open hairline crack, and on the order of 30,OOO:l in a matrix with a porosity of 20% and a
permeability of 10 md. At high area volume ratios, the acid spending time is short and the penetration
of live acid is greatly reduced. For this reason, live acid will penetrate farther in an open hydrau-

lic fracture than in a hairline fracture or through the matrix.

Acid Concentration
Initially, 15% HCI was picked as a standard acid strength because of the poor performance of the first
inhibitor, sodium arsenate, in higher concentrations of acid. As inhibitors were improved, the higher
concentrations of acids were used in fracturing for their higher dissolving capacity. In matrix treating of
sandstones, 15% HCI is usually the upper concentration limit.
and 10% strength are used as damage removal treatments in sandHydrochloric acids of 5, 7-1/2,
stone formations. These weak acids, when coupled with a surfactant, will frequently remove the acid
soluble damage with much less tubular corrosion than the higher strength acids.

Acid Selection
Selection of the acid for the stimulation is very often dictated by the damage and the composition and
temperature of the formation. In the majority of stimulations, HCI acid is used because of its low price,

12-24

lack of insoluble by-products, and high dissolving capacity. For reaction on clay, silt, and low calcium
content sandstone, a mixture of HCI acid and HF acid is used. In high temperature formations (temperatures above about 220F) where HCI reacts very quickly and is difficult to inhibit, an organic acid
may be considered as a substitute.
Formation Composition

The composition of the rock is important for determining the method of treatment as well as type and
strength of acid. If a formation has very little carbonate but is rich in clay minerals, then an HCI/HF
acid mixture may be the optimum stimulation for increasing impaired permeability in the immediate
area of the wellbore.

Additives
Acid additives are specially developed chemicals that modify the chemical or physical behavior of the
acid in reactions with produced fluids, the formation, or reaction by-products. The additives may be
surfactants, alcohols, hydrocarbon solvents, salts, polymers, and other compounds. They are formulated to solve a particular problem, yet may have other uses besides the primary function. The brief
additive descriptions that follow are intended to provide a brief look at the individual classes of materials.

Surfactants
Surfactants are multifunction chemicals which are added in small volumes to acid to accomplish a certain task. Some surfactants may help acid penetrate the formation more easily while others may act as
solubilizing agents or clay stabilizers. The amount and type of surfactant to use depends upon the formation and, in some cases, upon individual well characteristics.
One serious problem with surfactants is adsorption onto clay surfaces in the formation.44 Surfactants
which adsorb heavily should be avoided. This can usually be accomplished by knowledge about the
formation and the particular surfactant and the composition and behavior of backflow fluids after a
treatment.
Surfactants can be classified into four major groups. The division in which a surfactant belongs
depends upon the water-soluble group of the surfactant. The divisions are:
1. Anionic

2. Cationic

3. Nonionic
4. Amphoteric

Anionic surfactants have a negatively charged water-soluble group on the end of the molecule. Examples are the sulfate and sulfonate compounds. The major applications of anionics are as nonemulsifying, retarding, and cleaning agents.
Cationic surfactants have a positively charged water-soluble group. An example is quaternary ammonium chloride. The major uses of the cationics are as nonemulsifiers, corrosion inhibitors, and bactericides.
Most nonionic surfactants contain polymers as the water-soluble group and hence have no charge.
Examples of the nonionics are polyethylene oxide and polypropylene oxide. Major uses of nonionics
are as nonemulsifiers and foaming agents.

12-25

Amphoteric surfactants are organic molecules with a water-soluble group which may be either positive, negative, or have no charge. The particular charge of the water-soluble segment of an amphoteric surfactant depends upon the pH of the system. Amphoterics have only very limited usage within
the petroleum industry at the present time.
Mixing surfactants may cause reactions between some surfactants of oppositely charged classes to
the extent of rendering some surfactants inactive or damaging. Mixing of the surfactants cannot be
avoided in most cases, since the corrosion inhibitors are usually cationic, while many other acid additives are anionic; however, concentration ranges have been established by the service companies for
surfactant mixing so that maximum performance of each surfactant can be achieved.
Fluorocarbon surfactants are usually less adsorptive than normal hydrocarbon base surfactants but
can cause severe emulsion problems if used in the wrong concentrations. Fluorocarbons may work
adequately in the range of 5-100 ppm and are diluted usually with alcohol or water. Over use of any
surfactant may change the behavior of any surfactant and cause damage.
Wettability
Wettability is a term used to indicate whether a formation can be preferentially coated with oil or water.
This information may be determined from laboratory tests on the produced oil. Additives which convert
a formation surface from oil-wet to water-wet will speed considerably the reaction between the acid
and the soluble material. These surface preparations may be cleaners, solubilizers, or other water-soluble materials which can strip oil and water-wet the surface. Reservoirs are characteristically waterwet or oil-wet (a function of the natural surfactants in the crude oil) and the condition of the reservoir in
question should be known before planning a treatment. Removal of oil film from scale deposits is also
important for speeding the reaction of acid in removing the scales. Surfactant influences how the wetted surface will behave since the water-soluble, charged end of the surfactant is adsorbed on the formation leaving the oil-soluble group to influence wettability. In general, cationics (positively charged)
adsorb on sandstone (negatively charged) and anionics (negatively charged) adsorb on limestones
and dolomites (positively
Clay Control Additives: If a formation contains swelling or disintegrating clays which may cause permeability reduction, a clay control process may be warranted. These treatments, generally either polymer,51152zirconium o ~ y c h l o r i d eor
, ~ hydroxy
~
aluminum,54 work in different ways, but all seek to
isolate or stabilize the clays to prevent breakup of the clay platelets. The optimum clay stabilizer and
amount of stabilizer solution will depend upon the characteristics of the individual formations.
Surface Tension Reducers: A surface tension reducer aids in the recovery of fluids by decreasing
the amount of energy necessary to push the fluid past gas and liquid boundaries.
Demulsifying Agents and Nonemulsifying Agents: These chemicals are oil-soluble surface active
agents and are normally carried in a water or acid medium at concentrations of 0.1 % to 5%. Nonemulsifying additives prevent the formation of emulsions during an acidizing stimulation and demulsifiers
are designed to break emulsions. Special mixtures of HCI and nonemulsifying agents are marketed as
nonemulsifying acids to stimulate formations containing emulsion-causing crude^.^^?^' Proper concentration of the demulsifier or nonemulsifier in the treatment is critical. Too high a concentration of
demulsifier or nonemulsifier can turn some products into very good emulsifiers. For this reason, circulation of the acid tanks (which remixes the additives) before injection is a must. If a mutual solvent is
used in the treatment, neither a demulsifier or a nonemulsifier may not be needed.
Antisludge Additives: Some crude oils react chemically with hydrochloric acid to form semi-solid
particles referred to as sludge!1s42157 This formation of the acid-oil sludge begins almost immediately
after contact between the crude oil and the acid. The tendency toward formation of sludge is affected
by the concentration of the acid and other variables and is best determined by laboratory testing.
Higher strength acids and low API gravity oils have a greater tendency toward sludge formation.

12-26

Sludge may form in the wellbore or in the formation and can completely plug flow channels in the producing formation. Sludge is extremely difficult to remove because it is insoluble in most treating fluids.
Alcohols: By including certain alcohols or certain mixtures of alcohols in an acidizing treatment, it is
often possible to take advantage of their many surfactant qualities at a lower cost than buying a set of
individual surfactants such as a penetrating agent and an emulsion breaker.59i59Also, alcohols do not
adsorb in the formation like most surfactants, hence they remain with the treating solution in the formation. Alcohols are normally used at concentrations of 5% to 40% by volume in the treating fluid. The
advantages of alcohols are quick cleanup with less emulsions and water blocks.
Mutual Solvents

Mutual solvents may be the most useful additive in sandstone acidizing and damage removal treatments. Mutual solvents aid in lowering surface tension, breaking emulsions and water blocks and
have been used to reduce surfactant adsorption in the formation.5s6o The mutual solvent should be
considered whenever the possibility of creating emulsions and water blocks exists.
Acid Thickeners: Thickening of acids may be desirable to control leakoff, to inhibit mixing with other
fluids, or to promote differential etching in f r a c t ~ r i n g . ~The
~ ~products are occasionally used in matrix
treating, but are usually reserved for fracturing. Guar-gum polymers and some synthetic polymers are
often used as inexpensive thickeners in acid but since the acid acts as a breaker, their performance is
poor. Gelling agents designed for acid may be polymer, surfactant system or crosslinked polymer. Viscosities of polymer and surfactant gelled acids are about 20 to 50 cp or slightly higher, while the
crosslinked acid viscosity may be over 100 cp.
Inhibitors: Acid inhibitors slow the acid reaction on the steel piping in the well system and usually
keep tubular damage to a m i n i m ~ m . Before
~
any acid stimulation is planned for well, the condition of
the tubular goods should be known. If the casing and tubing are in poor condition or if the condition is
unknown, the use of a workover string should be considered. All acids used in stimulation should be
inhibited to protect the tubular goods as well as the service trucks and tanks. The inhibition protects
the steel by adhering to the metal and forming a very thin coating which the acid will not readily penetrate. This film will break down with time so the acid should be flushed out the lines and well tubular
goods after an acidizing job.

Since corrosion inhibitors are usually cationic surfactants, adsorption in sandstone reservoirs will strip
the acid of inhibitor very rapidly. When live acid is returned from the formation, corrosion on tubulars
can be severe. To minimize this problem, the acid concentration should be only high enough to consume the damage. If live acid will be returned to the wellbore, the acid should be flushed out as rapidly
as possible.
iron Control Agents: Hydrochloric acid reacts with iron in tubing, rust, iron scale, siderite or chlorite,
to form iron compounds such as gelatinous iron hydroxide as the pH of the spent acid rises above 2.0
(a relative acid strength of less than 1% HCI).w$E Sequestering agents are added to acid to prevent
the iron precipitation as the acid spends. To determine if a sequestering agent is needed, samples of
the returned acid from a treatment should be analyzed for total iron content and the source identified.
Suspending Agents: During an acid reaction on any acid-soluble material, fine particles which may
be acid-insoluble or slowly acid-soluble are released and carried through the fracture with the flow of
the acid. When the fluid movement stops or slows sufficiently, the particles may fall out of suspension
and plug the fracture. The use of a suspending agent (normally a soap or foaming surfactant) in the
acid will aid in keeping the particles in solution until produced from the well.

12-27

Wash Design
Wellbore Cleanup and Acid Wash

Removal of some scales, coatings, sludges, and other near-wellbore damage can often be accomplished with an acid soak or with low strength acid wash.
The basic procedure for an acid soak or spot is to run tubing completely below or to a point in the
lower half of the open-hole or perforated completion interval and pump the acid down the tubing,
allowing it to stand over the completion zone. Washing is often done on carbonate formations of high
permeability to reduce cement and drilling mud damage. This is also effective in reducing breakdown
pressure on wells to be fractured by reducing cement and perforation damage. If no packer is used, it
is most important that the fluid density of the acid be the same as the density of the fluid in the hole or
the acid will float up or become dispersed in the wellbore fluid. Acid density can be increased with
weighting materials such as calcium chloride if necessary. After the acid is spotted at the perfs, the
wellbore fluid-acid interface will seek a common level inside the tubing and in the casing tubing annulus if the wellbore fluid is kept fully loaded on the tubing and annulus at the surface.
To wash the completion zone, the acid should be pumped past the open hole or perforations by displacing it from the tubing (the acid should not be completely displaced from the tubing; this will minimize mixing with the displacement fluid), allowing the wellbore fluid-acid interface to rise in the
annulus. Then the acid can be allowed to U-tube back into the tubing by bleeding back some of the
displacing fluids from the tubing while simultaneously pumping fluid back into the annulus. This displacement of acid back and form from the tubing to the annulus should be done several times, so that
the completion interval is subjected to most of the unspent acid.
After the acid has been washed back and forth several times, the well fluid-acid interface can be displaced to near the top of the completion interval by pumping into the tubing. If a packer is not used,
then the annulus should be shut-in to hold the interface at this level or it can be held at that point by
setting the packer (provided the well does not go on vacuum). Then all of the acid below this point
and in the tubing can be pumped into formation with minimum pressures.
Solvent Wash of Injection Wells

In many injection wells there are layers of oil sludge built up over the open-hole or perforations which
prevent the well from taking injection water. These sludge layers often contain too much organic compounds for a mutual solvent and acid to effectively remove. To properly treat these cases, a solvent
such as toluene or xylene may be necessary. Although other solvents can disperse oil, xylene and toluene have been found to be the most consistent at solubilizing or dispersing most of the organic materials found in injection well sludges.
After washing and acidizing, the wellbore fluids should be backflowed or unloaded with nitrogen, if
possible. There is normally too much debris (sand, silt, undissolved oil and trash) remaining after a
treatment to flush the treatment into the formation (Note: This does not apply in injection wells where
there is no sludge).
In instances of very severe sludge buildup, mechanical scrapers and/or jetting nozzles on tubing have
been used successfully to clean wellbores.
Perforation Breakdown

Perforation breakdown treatments with acid have been used to try to open up the perforations prior to
production or further stimulation. These treatments have had very mixed results. A better approach to
breaking down (opening) perforations is the perforation breakdown tool offered by several companies.
The device is basically a perforated nipple between two packers.35 The packers isolate a few feet of
perforations at a time and an acid is pumped down the tubing and through the perforated nipple to
open the perforations. Although water or oil could be used to open the perfs, the acid can remove any
perforating debris and most cement and mud damage.

12-28

The spacing between the packers should be as short as possible since only a few perforations in each
treated interval will be opened before the fluid pressure is lost. The volume of acid pumped into each
section may vary but 25 gallft is usually adequate. This tool should not be used on perforations within
about 10 ft of any water contact due to the possibility of fracturing the zone into the water. If the treatment has to be shut-in for a time exceeding about six hours, consideration should be given to breaking
down the perfs with KCI or NH4CI water instead of acid.

Extreme Overbalance Perforating

An alternate method of breaking down perforations is to use a very high overbalance of a gas driven
clean fluid at the time of perforating. Details are given in the chapter on perforating.

Matrix Acidizing Design

Before designing an acidizing treatment, review the wells production history and determine if the
potential benefits are worth the stimulation attempt.36 The success ratio for matrix acidizing treatments in the industry is low - estimates range from 30-50% - and many wells are damaged by poorly
designed or unneeded acid treatments. Heading the list of acidizing failures are wells that are indiscriminately selected for acidizing because of a wild hope of increasing production. Effective use of
acid treatments requires careful examination of the well and its production history. A commitment to
designing a job on the basis of individual well requirements and controlling the quality of the treatment
will insure better results.
A great many acid jobs fail because the formation damage that has been treated is actually faulty
perforations. If the number, size or location of the perforations is in doubt, the well should be reperforated and tested before being acidized.

Obtaining the Required Information

Figure 12.17 is a worksheet that can be used in designing a treatment and illustrates the type of information necessary for treatment design. Section I of the figure must be filled in from well records or
field experience before the acidizing treatment can be designed. The items likely to cause the most
difficulty are average undamaged permeability and permeability of the highest permeability zone. The
average undamaged permeability can be obtained from buildup tests or from an average of core permeabilities. A core permeability average will likely be much lower than a permeability calculated from
a buildup test since a core permeability will not reflect the contribution of any natural fractures. If a
core permeability is used, it is best to use results of liquid permeability tests for oil and water wells and
of gas permeability tests for gas wells. A cores permeability to gas or air is often several fold higher
than its permeability to liquid if there is no correction for slippage and turbulence. A buildup permeability probably reflects closely the true permeability of the formation and should be used whenever possible. Actually, kh is the result from the buildup test and the accuracy of kwill depend on which h is
used; i.e., the perforated height or the total interval thickness. For purposes of this procedure, the net
(perforated) zone height should be used except in severely restricted, limited entry completions where
less than 50% of the net pay has been perforated. In that case, the perforated zone height should be
used. The permeability of the zone of highest permeability is a measure of the permeability of any thief
zones, fractured zones, or leakoff zones that may exist in the formation. If there are no thief zones or
stringers of high permeability, then this value should be set the same as the average undamaged permeability (k,,). If there is a history of rapid leakoff from the zone, an approximate permeability may be
calculated from leakoff rates or, if available, from core analyses of the high permeability zone on this
well or immediately offset wells. The wells stimulation history should be investigated since induced
fractures can act as leakoff zones.
Carbonate content and porosity are available from core data. Zone thickness and formation temperature are available from log data. The type of damage in the rock is best ascertained by examining well
and workover histories. If there is no damage but the formation does respond readily to acid, the formation can still be matrix acidized; however, matrix acidizing an undamaged formation will increase
the production rate only slightly.

12-29

I.

II.

Information Needed
formation temperature
avg. undamaged permeability
perm. of high perm zone
carbonate content
type of damage
avg. porosity (net pay)
net pay thickness
tbg. vol + csg below packer
open hole diam. if not cased

F
md
md
%
decimal
ft
bbl
in.

Design Information
1.

type ofdamage

(Figure 12.19)

2.

type of acid
if damage not acid soluble,
select a solvent

(Figure 12.18)

3.

type of solvent

(Figure 12.19)

4.

volume of acid/solvent
acid vol.
solvent vol.

5.

additives
additives
additives
additives

6.

stages and diverting

a.no. stages
b.type diverter
c.divt. quant.
d.Vol. stages
e.S.1. P./balls
f S.
I.P./spacing

(Figure 12s.18)
(Figure 12.20)
(Figure 12.20)
(Figure 12.21)
(Figure 12.22)
(Figure 12.23)

(Figure 12.24)
(Figure 12.25)
(Figure 12.26)
(Figure 12.26)
(Figure 12.27)
(Figure 12.27)

7.

Nitrogen or CO gas use?

decision based on
(Figure 12.28)
volumes set after contact with
service company engineer

8.

Ovemush
ovemush type
vol. of fluid

(see page 34)

(Figure 12.29)

Figure 12.17: Chemical Stimulation Design Work Sheet

12-30

Designing the Treatment

Section I I of the worksheet is filled out with the help of Figures 12.18 through 12.27.
The acid is usually selected (Figure 12.18) on the basis of the formation mineralogy, the formation
temperature and the type of damage in the sandstone. For sandstones with total carbonate content
below 10-15%, the best acid at temperatures below 250F is usually HCVHF (HCVHF acid in this
report refers exclusively to 12% HCI + 3% HF). At formation carbonate concentrations greater than
15%, acids containing HF are usually not recommended because an insoluble precipitate - calcium
fluoride, CaF2 - may form. At temperatures greater than 250"F, the HCI is typically replaced with formic acid or acetic acid.
~~

Less tll ian 5%

Temperature
(" F)
QOO

5% to 10%

10% to 15%

Temperature

Treatment

250-350

>350

Treatment

Over 15%

Treatment

50 ga'/n

15% HCI
followed by
HCllHF
200-250

by perforation
wash with
HCVHF

35 gallit
10% HCI
followed by
HCVHF
35 gaVft
10% formic
acid, formiclHC1, or
formic HF

200-250

50 gaVft 15%
HCI followed
by HCllHF

250-350

35 galin
10% formic
acid, or formic/HF

>350

35 gaVft
7.5% HCI &
10% formic
acid followed by forrnidHF
35 gallft 10%
formic acid
followed by
formicRlF

258350

50 gaVft 7.5%
HCI & 10%
formic acid

formic acid

250-350

50 gal/ft
10% 7.5%
HCI & 10%
formic acid

10% formic
acid

Figure 12.18: Carbonate Content

Figure 12.19 lists common types of formation damage and recommended solvents for treating them.
The type of damage may be what ultimately dictates which acid is used. However in dealing with insoluble precipitates, other limitations may take precedence (for example, even if there is drilling mud
damage, HCI/HF should not be used if the sandstone is limy; a better approach is a small fracture
treatment). The volume of acid (Figure 12.20) used in a matrix acid treatment varies with the permeability. (The depth of damage is also important; however it usually cannot be determined.) In low permeability zones where injection is very slow, it is advisable to use small volumes of acid to avoid
(1) corroding the tubing because of long acid residence time, (2) fracturing the sandstone with the
acid, or (3) precipitating acid reaction products out of the spent acid during the long period necessary
for recovering the spent acid. On formations with permeabilities less than 0.1 md, acid is recommended only for perforation breakdown. Acid may even be replaced here by a clean 2% KCI water
Selecting additives is the biggest challenge in treatment design. Figures 12.21 through 12.25 list recommended additives and surfactants for various conditions. Selecting some additives such as mutual
solvents precludes using other additives such as demulsifiers, nonemulsifiers, alcohols, or surface
tension lowering surfactants. The use of other additives, such as iron sequestering additives depends
upon the amount of rust or iron scale in the tubing. If excessive rust or iron scale is present, a pretreatment cleanout may be required. Do not use clay control additives unless the formation has demonstrated a sensitivity to produced waters or to waters that will be used in the treatment. Clay control

12-31

additives often reduce permeability by as much as 50%. There is a common test that purports to show
water sensitivity by injecting a one normal sodium chloride brine and following it with distilled water.
However unless sodium chloride brine followed by fresh water is to be used in the well, it is not a valid
test to demonstrate need for a clay control treatment. Sometimes in the area near the wellbore in an
unfractured well, the increase in velocity caused by converging radial flow will result in the production
of formation fines that can reduce the permeability. In such cases, a clay-control additive may be useful. If the fines are moving throughout the entire formation, however, a clay control treatment will not
be effective.

Figure 12.19: Solvents for Common Damage Conditions in Sandstones

Nitrogen gas may be useful if the formation is a gas zone with permeability below about 20 md and is
not naturally fractured. Whether to use nitrogen gas in the treatment can be decided with the aid of
Figure 12.26. The nitrogen supply company can help decide how much nitrogen gas to use. The volume will be based on bottomhole pressure, depth and the size of the treatment.

12-32

Figure 12.20: Suggested Acid Volumes

Additive

'

Corrosion Inhibitor
Clay Control Agent
Friction Reducer
Silt Suspender
Iron Control Agent

Use
always used when acidizing
use only if problem clays may exist
use in high rate fracturing treatments
when clearing drilling mud or when acid reaction produces more than 10% silt
Use only if analysis of previous acid backflow shows >1500 ppm total iron. Also
needed where >10% chlorite, magnetite or siderite exists. Rusty tbg. must be
cleaned or redaced before acid.
Figure 12.21: Specific Purpose Acid Additives

The overflush volume is usually minimized since acid spends fairly rapidly in the formation matrix and
a large overflush would unnecessarily contribute more load fluid to recover. The recommended overflush volumes are given in Figure 12.27. The type of overflush fluids depends upon the acid and the
formation. For HCI treatments, one can use filtered produced water, 2% KCI water, 2% NH4CI water,
gas (in a gas well), or oil (in an oil well) - as long as the fluid is CLEAN. For HCllHF acid, acceptable
overflushes are clean 2% NH4CI water, oil, gas or HCI. If an HCI afterflush is used, 5% to 7-112% HCI
is usually adequate.

12-33

Additive

Antisludge
Nonemulsifier
Demulsifier

Use

Miscible/mutual Solvent
Alcohol

I use when emulsions and sludges

many surtactants
- .present may- replace
.
to remove water blocks, helps recover water or spent acid, breaks some
emulsions
prevents sludge in oils where a proven sludge tendency exists
prevents emulsions, testing mandatory not needed when mutual solvent is
used
breaks emulsions, testing mandatory not needed when mutual solvent is
used
Figure 12.22: General Purpose Acid Additives

Additive
Mutual solvent
Surf. Tens. lowering
Dispersants
Foamers

Use
neips remove water blocks in oil zones
helps remove water blocks in oil zones
helps solvent penetrate paraffin and sludges
used in combination with gas to help unload well
Figure 12.23: Solvent Additives

Average Undamaged
Permeability X Zone
Thickness*, k,h
10 to 100 md tt
100 to 1000 md ft

>loo0 md ft or natural fractures

Recommendations
Two stages; put diverter in last third or tirst stage, or use perforation
wash tool.
Three stages; put diverter in last third of stages one and two, or use
perforation wash tool.
Four stages; put diverter in last third of stages one, two, and three
or use perforation wash tool.

Figure 12.24: Number of Stages for a Matrix Acid Treatment

After the worksheet has been completed, pressure calculations will need to be added and a workover
form completed.

12-34

Thermal stimulation may be accomplished by electric resistance heating, hot oil, water injection or
controlled circulation, gas burners, in-situ combustion, exothermic reactions or steam injection.
Electric heat generation devices have been used in areas producing viscous crudes to lower the oil
viscosity or where the paraffin cloud point (precipitation point) is nearly the same as the bottom hole
temperature. Both continuous and intermittent heaters are available for specific applications. The total
quantity of wells heated by electrical resistance heating is small; the expense of electricity and power
losses are the chief reasons.
The response from wells in California and the USSR shows varied response depending upon sand
thickness and amount of damage in the reservoir. In California, a 13" API crude oil with a viscosity of
over 3500 centipoise at the wellbore temperature of 80F was successfully produced after the temperature at the wellbore was increased to 140" (viscosity dropped to 210 centipoise). Payout time of the
capitol cost of equipment was approximately two years.
Electric heaters currently available may be of several types. Usually the power ratings are between 960 kilowatts (20,000-500,000 BTU/hour). These heaters may deliver heat generation in excess of
2OO0F, although the depth penetration of the heat into the wellbore is limited, especially as fluids flow
toward the wellbore.
Gas burners are suitable for heating wellbores to much higher temperatures and for initiating fire
floods and fire flood clean up around the wellbore. A gas burner involves injection of gas down the
tubing while air is injected down the casing/tubing annulus. The gas is ignited by an ignition system at
the tool creating extremely high temperatures. If the zone is a fire flood, the flame is exposed to the
formation and if the thermal properties of the gas are to be exploited without a fire flood, the tool uses
a shield to protect the casing from heat damage. Heat is transferred by air flowing around the heat
shield and into the formation.
Hot water circulation is a simple method of wellbore heating, but it is not usually effective because the
tubing and casing become a shell and tube exchanger: the returning fluid robs heat from the injected
fluid. Methods that make the process work are insulated tubing and dual tubing strings. Bull heading
(no circulation) is also an effective method of getting heat to bottom hole although formation damage
is severe.66
Stimulation of oil wells by combustion is an outgrowth of fire flood technology. The familiar combustion
front is initiated at the wellbore by a burner and propagated into the formation to a distance of approximately 10-20 ft. The cleaned formation surrounding the wellbore serves as a pathway of improved
permeability to the returning fluids when the well is put back on production.
Hot water and steam injection provide effective well stimulation. Steam is the more widely used of any
of the high capacity thermal methods and is capable of millions of BTU input into a formation. Use of
hot water in stimulations have met with only limited success because of heat transfer problems. Cyclic
steam injection over a period of weeks or months may provide roughly the same productivity increase
as a fire flood.
Chemical Heat Generation

Heat may also be produced either downhole or at the surface by the use of exothermic reaction^.^^-^'
The most common heat producer involves the reaction of sodium nitrite with another salt, such as
ammonium nitrate or ammonium chloride, to produce heat and nitrogen gas?8 The advantage of this
reaction over other exothermic reactions is that it may be controlled by buffers that affect the pH of the
system. By control of the mixing and the buffers, the point at which maximum heat is generated can be
predicted and controlled. Maximum temperatures recorded with the process are in excess of 400F
and the total heat available depends upon the volume of the reactants. The process offers some treating versatility, since the buffered reactants can be combined with aromatic solvents in a slightly stabi-

12-37

lized emulsion that will provide a heated solvent at a predetermined place in the ~ e l l b o r e . ~
The
main
application in the technical literature has been in paraffin removal.
A second heat generation process, specifically for acid, is addition of ammonia to hydrochloric acid.
The reaction of the acid with the ammonia generates an immediate heat rise.71The need for heating
hydrochloric acid is rare but has application in fracturing a cool, low reactivity dolomite, prevention of
paraffin precipitation, removing high viscosity oil coatings from an acid reactive surface, as an aid in
breaking emulsions, and to minimize tubing contraction caused by injecting cool acid in a hot well.

References
1. Williams, B. B.: Fluid Loss from Hydraulically Induced Fractures, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (July 1970), 882-888.
2. Harrison, N. W.: Diverting Agents - History and Application, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(May 1972), 593-598.
3. Ellenberger, C. W. and Aseltine, R. J.: Selective Acid Stimulation to Improve Vertical Efficiency
in Injection Wells - A Case History, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Jan. 1977), 25-29.
4. Best, B. W. and Miller, L. 0.: Optimum Use of Diverting Agents in Well Stimulation Treatments,
Stimulation, 101-103.
5. Webster, K. R.; Goins, W. C., Jr. and Berry, S. C.: A Continuous Multi-stage Fracturing Technique, Journal of Petroleum Technology (June 1965), 619-625.

6. Stipp, L. C. and Williford, I?. A.: Pseudolimited Entry: A Send Fracturing Technique for Simultaneous Treatment of Multiple Pays, Journal of Petroleum Technology (May 1968), 457-462.
7. Lagrone, K. W. and Rasmussen, J. W.: A New Development in Completion Methods-The Lim-

ited Entry Technique, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July 1963), 695-702.

8. Streltsova-Adams, T. D.: Pressure Drawdown in a Well with Limited Flow Entry, Journal of
Petroleum Technology (Nov. 1979), 1469-1476.
9. Jones, L. G. and Slusser, M. L.: The Estimation of Productivity Loss Caused by Perforation Including Partial Completion and Limited Entry, Paper SPE 4798, presented at the Second Midwest Oil and Gas Symposium, Indianapolis, March 28-29, 1974.
10. Hushbeck, D. F.: Precision Perforation Breakdown for More Effective Stimulation Jobs, Paper
SPE 14096, Int. Mtg. Pet. Eng. Beijing, March 17-20, 1986.
11. Ande, T. J. and Perkins, D. B.: Thru-Tubing Plugback Tools and Services, Amoco New Orleans
Engineering Report, November 16, 1987.
12. Brown, R. W.; Neill, G. H. and Loper, R. G.: Factors Influencing Optimum Ball Sealer Performance, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (April 1963), 450-454.
13. Crurnp, J. B. and Conway, M. W.: Effects of Perforation-Entry Friction on Bottom Hole Treating
Analysis, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Aug. 1988), 1041-1048.
14. Erbstoesser, S. R.: Improved Ball Sealer Diversion, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (Nov.
1980), 1903-1910.

12-38

15. Gabriel, G. A. and Erbstoesser, S.R.: The Design of Buoyant Ball Sealer Treatments, Paper
SPE 13085 presented at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
September 16-19, 1984.
16. King, G. E. and Hollingsworth, F. H.: Evaluation of Diverting Agent Effectiveness and Cleanup
Characteristics Using a Dynamic Laboratory Model - High Permeability Case, Paper SPE 8400,
54th Annual Fall Mtg, Las Vegas, September 23-26, 1979.
17. Hill, A. D. and Galloway, P. J.: Laboratory and Theoretical Modeling of Diverting Agent Behavior, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July 1984), 1157-1163.
18. Houchin, L. R., Dunlap, D. D.,Hudson, L. M. and Begnaud, P. C.: Evaluation of Oil-Soluble
Resin as an Acid-Diverting Agent, Paper SPE 15574 presented at the 61st Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, October 5-8,
1986.
19. Coulter, A. W., Crowe, C. W., Barrett, N. D. and Miller, B. D.: Alternate Stages of Pad Fluid and
Acid Provide Improved Leakoff Control for Fracture Acidizing, Paper SPE 6124 presented at the
51st Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, New Orleans, October 3-6, 1976.
20. Dill, W. R.: A Gel Diverting Agent Used in Acidizing Treatments, Halliburton Services, Production Engineering, 1978, 111-115.
21. Burman, J. W. and Hall, B. E.: Foam as a Diverting Technique for Matrix Sandstone Stimulation, Paper SPE 15575 presented at the 61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, October 5-8, 1986.
22. Penny, G. S.: Nondamaging Fluid Loss Additives for Use in Hydraulic Fracturing of Gas Wells,
Paper SPE 10659 presented at the SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette,
March 24-25, 1982.
23. King, G. E.: Foam and Nitrified Fluid Treatments - Stimulation Techniques and More, Paper
SPE 14477 presented as a Distinguished Lecture during the 1985-86 SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program.
24. Schriefer, F. E. and Shaw, M. S.: Use of Fine Salt as a Fluid Loss Material in Acid Fracturing
Stimulation Treatments, Paper SPE 7570 presented at the 53rd Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, October 1-3, 1978.
25. Miller, B. D. and Warembourg, P. A.: Prepack Technique Using Fine Sand Improves Results of
Fracturing and Fracture Acidizing Treatments, Paper SPE 5643 presented at the 50th Annual
Fall Meeting, Dallas, September 28-October 1, 1975.
26. Fry, W. C. D., Boney, C. L., Atchley, J. W. and Whitsett, F. T.: The Use of 100 Mesh Sand for
Improving Acid Efficiency, Paper presented at the Southwest Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock,
79-82.
27. Dill, W. R.: Effect of Bridging Agents and Carrier Fluids on Diverting Efficiency, Journal of
Petroleum Technology (Oct. 1969), 1347-1352.
28. Pye, D. S.and Smith, W. A.: Fluid Loss Additive Seriously Reduces Fracture Proppant Conductivity and Formation Permeability, Paper SPE 4680 presented at the 48th Annual Fall Meeting of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Las Vegas, September 30 - October 3, 1973.

12-39

29 Canson, B. E.: Lost Circulation Treatments for Naturally Fractured, Vugular, or Cavernous Formations, Paper SPE/IADC 13440 presented at the SPE/IADC 1985 Drilling Conference, New
Orleans, March 6-8, 1985.
30. Coberly, C. J. and Wagoner, E. M.,: Some Considerations in the Selection and Installation of
Gravel Packs for Oil Wells, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Aug. 1938), 1-20.
31. Mahajon, N. C. and Barrow, B. M.,: Bridging Particle Size Distribution: A Key Factor in the
Design of Non-Damaging Completion Fluids, SPE 8792, 4th Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Bakersfield, January 28 & 29, 1980.
32. Super X Acid Technical Report, Dowell, DWL1313-26M-966.
33. McBride, J. R., Rathbone, M. J., and Thomas, R. L.: Evaluation of Fluoroboric Acid Treatment in
the Grand Isle Offshore Area Using Multiple Rate Flow Test, Paper SPE 8399 presented at the
54th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, September 23-26, 1979.
34. Gdanski, R.: AICI3 Retards HF Acid for More Effective Stimulations, Oil and Gas Journal (October 1985), pp. 111-116.
35. Jefferies-Harris, M. J., Coppel, C. P.: Solvent Stimulation in Low Gravity Oil Reservoirs, JPT
(February 1969), pp. 165-175.
36. King, G. E., Holman, G. B.: Hydrocarbon Solvents: An Alternative to Acid for Removing Some
Formation Damage, SPE 14136, presented at the 1986 Internat. Mtg. on Pet. Eng., Beijing,
March 17-20, 1986.
37 * Douglass, B. C., King, G. E.: A Comparison of Solvent/Acid Workovers in Embar Completions Little Buffalo Basin Field, SPE 15167, presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Mtg., Billings,
MT, May 19-21, 1986.
38. Minter, R. B., Davis, E. E., Conway, E. E.: An Acid-Solvent Stimulation Technique for Low Gravity Crudes, SPE 3189, 41st Calif. Reg. Mtg., October 28-30, 1970.
39. Gidley, J. L.: Acidizing Sandstone Formations - A Detailed Examination of Recent Experience,
Paper SPE 14164 presented at the 60th Annual Technical Conference, Las Vegas, September
22-25, 1985.
40. King, G. E., Holman, G. B.: Quality Control at Well Site Optimizes Acidizing Economics, Oil and
Gas J. (March 18, 1985), pp. 139-142.
41. Jacobs, I.: Asphaltene Precipitation During Acid Stimulation Treatments, SPE 14823, Formation Damage Symposium, Lafayette, 1986.
42. Moore, E. W., Crowe, C. W., Henrickson, A. R.: Formation Effect and Prevention of Asphaltene
Sludges During Stimulation Treatment, J. Pet. Tech. (September 1965), pp. 1023-1028.
43. Holditch, S. A.: Factors Affecting Water Blocking and Gas Flow from Hydraulically Fractured
Gas Wells, Paper SPE 7561 presented at the 53rd Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Houston, October 1-3, 1978.
44. King, G. E., Lee, R. M.: Adsorption and Chlorination of Mutual Solvents Used in Acidizing, SPE
Prod. Eng. (May 1988), pp. 205-209.

12-40

45. Anderson, W. G.: Wettability Literature Survey - Part 1: Wettability Measurement, Journal of
Petroleum Technology (November 1986), pp. 1246-1262.
46. Anderson, W. G.: Wettability Literature Survey - Part 2: Wettability Measurement, Journal of
Petroleum Technology (November 1986), pp. 1246-1262.
47. Anderson, W. G.: Wettability Literature Survey - Part 3: Wettability Measurement, Journal of
Petroleum Technology (November 1986), pp. 1246-1262.
48. Anderson, W. G.: Wettability Literature Survey - Part 4: Wettability Measurement, Journal of
Petroleum Technology (November 1986), pp. 1246-1262.
49. Anderson, W. G.: Wettability Literature Survey - Part 5: Wettability Measurement, Journal of
Petroleum Technology (November 1986), pp. 1246-1262.
50. Anderson, W. G.: Wettability Literature Survey - Part 6: Wettability Measurement, Journal of
Petroleum Technology (November 1986), pp. 1246-1262.
51. Woodroof, R. A. and Anderson, R. W.: Synthetic Polymer Friction Reducers Can Cause Formation Damage, Paper SPE 6812 presented at the 52nd Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Denver, October 9-12, 1977.
52. McLaughlin, H. C., Elphingstone, E. A., and Hall, B. E.: Aqueous Polymers for Treating Clay in
Oil and Gas Producing Formations, SPE 6008, New Orleans, October 3-6, 1976.
53. Veley, C. D.: How Hydrolyzable Metal Ions React with Clays to Control Formation Water Sensitivity, J. Pet. Tech. (September 1969), pp. 1111-1118.
54. Reed, M. G.: Stabilization of Formation Clays with Hydroxy Aluminum Solutions, JPT, July
1972.
55. Gidley, J. L. and Hanson, H. R.: Prevention of Central Terminal Upsets Related to Stimulation
and Consolidation Treatments, SPE 4551, 48th Annual Fall Mtg., Las Vegas, September 30October 3, 1973.
56. Coppel, C. P.: Factors Causing Emulsion Upsets in Surface Facilities Following Acid Stimulation, JPT, September 1975, pp. 1060-1066.
57. Delorey, J. R. and Taylor, R. S.: Recent Studies Into Iron/Surfactant/Sludge Interactions in
Acidizing, Paper Petroleum Society of CIM 85-36-38 presented at the 36th Annual Technical
Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM Held Jointly with the Canadian Society of Petroleum
Geologists, Edmonton, June 2-5, 1985.
58. Gidley, J. L.: Stimulation of Sandstone Formations with the Acid-Mutual Solvent Method, J. Pet.
Tech. (May 1971), pp. 551-558.
59. Hall, B. E.: The Effect of Mutual Solvents on Adsorption in Sandstone Acidizing, JPT (December 1975), pp. 1439-1442.
60. King, G. E., Brown, T. M.: Performance of Amoco A-Sol as a Mutual Solvent System, SWPSC,
April 1978, Lubbock.

12-41

61. Crowe, C. W., Martin, R. C., and Michaelis, A. M.: Evaluation of Acid Gelling Agents for Use in
Well Stimulation, Paper SPE 9384 presented at the 55th Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, September 21-24, 1980.
62. Pabley, A. S. and Holcomb, D. L.: A New Stimulation Technique: High Strength Crosslinked
Acid, Paper SPE 9241 presented at the 55th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, September 21-24, 1980.
63. Church, D. C., Quisenberry, J. L., and Fox, K. B.: Field Evaluation of Gelled Acid for Carbonate
Formations, Journal of Petroleum Technology (December 1981), pp. 2471-2473.
64. Gougler, P. D., Hendrick, J. E., and Coulter, A. W.: Field Investigation Identifies Source and
Magnitude of Iron Problems, Paper SPE 13812 presented at the SPE 1985 Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, March 10-12, 1985.
65. Smolarchuk, P. and Dill, W.: ;Iron Control in Fracturing and Acidizing Operations, Paper Petroleum Society of CIM 86-37-28 presented at the 37th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum
Society of CIM, Calgary, June 8-11, 1986.
66. Antheunis, D, Davies, D. R and Richardson, E. A.: Field Application of In-Situ Nitrogen Gas
Generation System, Paper SPE 9653 presented at the Middle East Oil Technical Conference of
SPE; Manama, Bahrain; March 9-12, 1981.
67. Collesi, J. B., Donavan, S.C., McSpadden, H. W. and Mitchell, T. I.: Field Application of a
Chemical Heat and Nitrogen Generating System, Paper SPE 12776 presented at the 1984 California Regional Meeting, Long Beach, April l 1-13, 1984.
68. McSpadden, H. W., Tyler, M. L. and Velasco, T. T.: In-Situ Heat and Paraffin Inhibitor Combination Prove Cost Effective in NPR #3, Casper, Wyoming, Paper SPE 15098 presented at the 56th
California Regional Meeting of SPE, Oakland, April 2-4, 1986.
69. Ashton, J. P., Credeur, D. J., Kirspel, L. J. and Nguyen, H. T.: In-Situ Heat System Stimulates
Paraffinic Crude Producers in Gulf of Mexico, Paper SPE 15660 presented at the 61st Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, New Orleans, October 5-8, 1986.
70. Collesi, J. B., McSpadden, H. W. and Scott, T. A.: Surface Equipment Cleanup Utilizing In-Situ
Heat, Paper SPE 16215 presented at the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma
City, March 8-10, 1987.

71. Hoch, O., Fredrickson, S., Norman, L. and Walker, M. L.: Heated Acids for Improved Stimulation
Results, Paper CIM 86-37-68 presented at the 37th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum
Society of CIM, Calgary, June 8-1 1, 1986.
72. Straub, T. J., Autry, S. W., King, G. E.: An Investigation Into Practical Removal of Downhole Paraffin by Thermal Methods and Chemical Solvents, SPE 18889, Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, March 13-14, 1989, pp. 577-584.

12-42

Appendix 12.A Diverters and Fluid Loss

Granular Salt

The 100-mesh salt product is a range of salt sizes varying between approximately 70 and 140-mesh.
Salt is one of the easiest carried diverters and can be used in any well which produces water or in any
well which can be flushed with water.24 The salt may be pumped only in oil, saturated brines, in concentrated acids, and in weak acids which have been salt saturated. A graph of the solubility of salt in
acid is shown in Figure 12.30. Once placed, the salt is soluble in almost all produced waters, most
spent acids and aqueous overflushes. The 100-mesh salt is most effective on perforations and natural
fracture sand is easily removed, Figure 12.31.

Diverter

Average Percent of Initial Permeabiiity

Regained
After First 1/4" of Injection Face Removed

100 Mesn Sand

100%

Granulated Salt (no polymer)

Resin Dispersion
Benzoic Acid
Naphthalene
Polymer

'92%
82%
77%
74% (Typical)

100%

Figure 12.31: Penetration and Removal of Various Diverters

100-Mesh Sand

The 100-mesh sand, sometimes referred to as Oklahoma No. 1, has a size distribution roughly
between 70- and 140-mesh. This sand, which has been used in fracturing treatments, is not an effective propping agent but rather a fluid loss or diverter materia1.25~26
The sand is carried by acid, brine,
oil, water, or gelled water, and is a good diverting agent for perforations or natural fractures. Sand is
not recommended in matrix acidizing of an unfractured well since it cannot be removed from the perforation by any assurable method. The use of 100 mesh sand is generally discouraged due to damage
on pumps as it is produced back. Where it is required, a temporary pump is usually run for one to two
weeks after the treatment to allow the well to clean up.
Calcium Carbonate

Calcium carbonate is available in sizes from crushed oyster shells and pea size granules to powder.
This material is a fill type diverter that can be used in high rate chemical matrix treating and then later
removed with acid. It can be placed with a gelled brine. It is not recommended for diverting in matrix
acidizing treatments since it is very rapidly soluble in HCI. Calcium carbonate comes in a wide range
of sizes, Figure 12.32. The most effective size range to bridge and seal is from 1/6 the pore size to
about 7 times the pore size.
Naphthalene

Naphthalene flakes are a whitish, thin flake-type diverter with a density of 1.2. They are soluble in
xylene, toluene, condensate, and in a gas stream by sublimation. Naphthalene has been used successfully in reservoirs to divert acid; however, flake type diverters should not be used in loadings over
1 Ib/perforations or where there are very small perforations (such as through tubing perforations). In
this situation, the flake type diverters may jam together and be extremely difficult to unload when the

12.A-43

well is turned around for backflow. Naphthalene flakes may be placed by acid or water but should not
be placed with a polymer water. The polymer coats the naphthalene flake and makes it very difficult to
dissolve the flake in its normal solvents. If naphthalene flakes are used, a small overflush (1520 gal/ft) of xylene, toluene, or condensate is recommended to help remove the material. Without the
solvent, naphthalene is still removable by gas, Figure 12.33, although only the material in the path of
the gas can be removed. Removal by sublimation is also dependent upon the temperature of the gas
stream.
Benzoic Acid Flakes
Benzoic acid flakes, which physically resemble naphthalene flakes, are also limited in their use to
wells with relatively large perforations or natural fractures. Benzoic acid flakes are soluble in water,
acid, oil, and in gas by sublimation. They may be placed by acid or water but not by polymer water for
the same reason as naphthalene flakes. Benzoic acid flakes should not be used in gas wells with a
temperature below 120F since the removal by gas sublimation at low temperature is extremely slow,
Figure 12.33.
Wax Beads
Wax beads are small wax pellets. They may be placed by water or acid solutions and can only be
removed by hydrocarbons at certain temperatures. Solubility in oil follows the softening step at temperature. When using this material, select an oil softening point at least 20F below the static bottomhole temperature. Although these materials can be easily transported by water or acid and are
effective in fluid control, Figure 12.34, their density of 0.8 causes them to float and makes them ineffective in most matrix operations where pump rate is not in turbulence.
Organic Resin Beads
Organic resin beads have a size range of -70 to +140 mesh. They are available as a dry additive that
may be placed with acid and are effective in slowing the acid rate into a perforation or a fracture. The
beads are soluble in xylene, toluene; condensate, and very slowly soluble in oil. They may be placed
in any aqueous solution and are normally run at the rate of about 1/4 to 1/2 Ib per perforation, or
approximately 1 to 2 Ib/ft of open hole. The density is 1.04, thus they can be easily transported in
water or matrix treating acids and can be used in either normal matrix treating, interface treating or in
any non-oil fracturing fluid. The organic resin diverters cannot be used where a mutual solvent or aromatic-acid dispersion is used since the diverter would be prematurely dissolved. The resin beads can
be used in mixtures of methyl or isoprdpyl alcohol and acid or water. A small hydrocarbon overflush
may be useful after an acid job where beads are used.
Organic Resin Dispersions
The organic resin dispersions are effective as a fluid loss agent in oil or wet gas wells where there are
no significant natural fractures. If there are natural fractures, very large quantities of this material
would be required for fluid loss control since it does not bridge the natural fractures. The material can
be placed by either water or acid solution and is soluble in any hydrocarbon production or overflush. A
small hydrocarbon overflush (1 5-20 gal/ft) of xylene, toluene, or condensate can be used after the
acid treatment to speed cleanup.
Micron Size Particulates
Very rapid fluid loss control may be achieved by the micron size particulate diverters. The particles are
small enough to be carried with the placement fluid (acid, water or oil) as a dispersion and can be
used for any matrix operations in formations which are not significantly naturally fractured. These
materials are effective in reducing fluid loss, however, they do create a significant amount of formation
damage since they do not have a solvent.

12.A-44

Polymers
Non-crosslinked polymers control leak-off by viscosity control and are often associated with other
types of fluid loss control. These materials, which are usually guar or a chemically modified guar, are
effective in controlling fluid loss in formations, Figure 12.35, but may achieve fluid loss control by
building a filter cake of polymer debris (wall building). At higher permeabilities, crosslinked polymer
gels should be considered. Polymer usage generally ranges in concentrations from 10 to approximately 50 Ibs/lOOO gal. Acid solutions can be gelled by special polymers, but these materials are usually not used in matrix acidizing since they reduce the acid flow into all zones.

Others
Materials such as paper, shredded cloth or leather, grain, or sawdust are not recommended since permanent permeability damage is produced.

12.A-45

Chapter 13: FracWing

Hydraulic fracturing is a technique that establishes a crack through part of the formation. If the crack
remains open, either by use of solid proppant or if a fluid such as acid creates channels in the face of
the fracture, the reservoir fluids may more easily flow toward the wellbore. Fracturing may be accomplished by liquid or gas pressure, mechanical action or explosive force.
In the 1860s, nitroglycerine was detonated in the wellbores of low permeability Pennsylvania oil
sands. This practice produced increases in flow, although such increases were often temporary and
wellbore was often destroyed. The ability of fluid to break down the formation was first noticed in
water injection wells, where injecting water above a certain pressure would cause a substantial
increase in injection rate that could not be explained by flow through the matrix at higher pressures.
Another piece of evidence of a disturbance of matrix flow was increased production in wells where the
casing was run fast.
In the late 1940s, hydraulic fracturing was recognized as a potential stimulation process. In the first
experiments, using gelled oil and a small amount of sand, it was concluded that the process did
increase production but not as much as the standard acidizing treatment. Subsequent experiments
and improving fluid and proppant technology made the fracturing technique a routine stimulation process. From 1949 to 1981, about 800,000 fracture treatments were performed. About 35 to 40% of all
recently drilled wells are fractured and the percentage is increasing as fracturing is recognized as a
damage bypass tool in higher permeability reservoirs.2
The most common fracturing process creates a crack in the rock by liquid or injected gas pressure.14
Other techniques, such as explosive fracturing, use expanding gas from a propellant or explosive
reaction to fracture or shatter the f ~ r m a t i o nAlthough
.~
explosive fracturing is the oldest form of fracturing it does not compare (in stimulation of an undamaged well) to the production increases available
from long fractures of a hydraulic fracture stimulation.
In the hydraulic fracturing process, the fracturing fluid is injected at a rate faster than the fluid can leakoff through the matrix of the rock. This results in a pressure rise that breaks the formation. Continued
pumping widens the fracture and extends it out from the wellbore. The growth of the fracture is the
object of a great many papers and much argument in the industry. The fracture most likely expands
out from the wellbore in a radial fashion; gaining height, width and length. Total height growth will very
likely equal the length growth unless beds above and/or below the pay zone have significantly different modulus of elasticity and sufficient thickness to contain the fracture. It is also commonly believed
that the fracture will extend out in both directions from the well. Prediction of growth of the fracture will
be covered in the next section.
When water, oil or foam are the fracture fluids, a proppant, such as sand, is injected in the liquid. This
proppant keeps the formation stresses from closing the fracture after the hydraulic fracturing pressure
has been released. If the conductivity (ability to flow) of this propped fracture is significantly greater
than that of the formation, the production rate will be increased.

Recovery by Fracturing
Use of fracturing to increase recoverable reserves is always an economic judgement and is very
heavily controlled by reservoir factors (permeability, pressure and fluid viscosity) plus the fracture variables (length, height, width, total reservoir contact, and the all-important conductivity). In a eutopian
view, a single perforation in a single well can drain an entire reservoir; given sufficient time and pressure drawdown. But, the drainage achieved in this manner is in no way efficient. Increasing the rate of
depletion requires more wells, complete exposure of the pay, and often requires improving the flow
path from the formation toward the wellbore. This improved flow path, the fracture, can improve the
rate in some reservoirs. Selecting the best reservoirs to fracture and the best fracture design for an

13-1

individual reservoir is a matter of concern for a computer based simulator. In general, the useful fracture length will increase as formation permeability and produced fluid viscosity decrease. For the
example of a gas well, Figure 13.1, a plot of fracture half-length versus formation permeability shows
very short or no frac length needed at formation permeabilities of approximately 100 md.6 The same
data will also show that needed half-lengths increase to thousands of feet to effectively drain a gas
reservoir with a permeability of 0.01 md or less.

Fracture
h a l f length
.10OO's f t
I

I~onvcntiona~

(Elkins, SPE)

Figure 13.1:

Estimate of the usable fracture half lengths for gas

production based on formation permeability. This
work ignores the benefits of damage bypass.

The practical side of improved recovery by fracturing deals with the economic recovery of the hydrocarbon from the reservoir. Wells can only be operated as long as the flow rate from the well provides
economic incentive to offset the costs of well operation and provide a reasonable profit. In wells where
this rate is too low initially or has become too low by depletion of the reservoir near the wellbore, fracturing may be a viable alternative for increasing flow rate.

Fracturing Economics
Hydraulic fracturing is the only proven stimulation method for significantly increasing both the rate and
the total recovery from low permeability reservoirs. The design of the fracture treatment has three
basic requirements that are directly affected by the reservoir, fluid type, and by economics:*
1. Determine what oil/gas rate and recovery might be expected from various fracture lengths and
fracture conductivities for conditions in a given reservoir.

2. Determine the fracture treatment design to achieve the desired fracture lengths and conductivities.

3. Maximize economic returns by comparing fracture costs and return on investment of the money
spent on fracturing.
Designing a fracture treatment is usualiy done with a computer simulator that can provide simultaneously calculated values of rates, recovery, and economic value from inputted data. Figure 13.2 contains plots from a reservoir simulator/hydraulic fracturing simulator program. The data shows that frac
length can be a definite factor in some reservoirs in revenue generated by a well by combining data on
treatment volume (and cost of treatment) versus fracture length with the revenue generation data. A

13-2

plot of fracture length versus revenue-less-cost can pinpoint the optimum fracture length and the treatment size.

Length

Years

Hydrafrae
Simulator

t+;

Revenue

LOSS

I
U

I
!
Fracture Length

Fracture Length

Length

(Veatch)

Figure 13.2: A total concept approach to fracture design using reservoir and hydrafrac simulators to reach an estimate of economic fracture length.

Fracturing Length and Conductivity Decisions

Hydraulic fracturing is a well stimulation technique that has tremendous utility in increasing production. Like almost all systems, determining the optimum treatment design requires the engineer to consider the characteristics of the reservoir as a flowing system and pick the type of fracture treatment
that is most useful for the reservoir and well characteristics. The success of a fracture treatment is
dependent on the fracture providing sufficient fracture flow capacity or conductivity to act as a preferential pathway (lower restrictive backpressure) for reservoir fluids to flow to the wellbore. The contrast
in conductivity between the fracture and the formation determines how long the effective fracture can
be. Fractures cost money to create and prop open. If the fracture conductivity is low in comparison to
the formation permeability, then only a short fracture can be economically justified. When the conductivity of the fracture is high in relationship to the formation permeability, then a much longer fracture is
justified. Advances in fracturing technology have made higher conductivity fractures possible. This
has increased the population of wells where fracturing can be effectively used.
There are two basic reasons for hydraulic fracturing a reservoir; either, or in some cases both can be
sound engineering and economic reasons.
1. Where the fracture conductivity is high in comparison to the formation permeability, fractures are
usually economic. Other considerations are the viscosity of the flowing fluid and the mechanical
limits in placing a fracture in the productive zone.
2. Where formation damage is obstructing the path to the wellbore and the fracture can penetrate
through the damage layer and provide a conductive path between reservoir and wellbore. This
damage can include true formation damage causes and mechanical effects such as turbulence
(non Darcy effects).

Many authors have tried to numerically quantify the effect of fracturing and relate it to a process that
can be mathematically modeled. The best approaches have been to relate the fracture and formation
conductivities to a fraction of the wellbore drainage that can be penetrated with a fracture. Although
somewhat theoretical, the models built with this approach allow the engineer to look at the most effective fracture penetration distance for a projected increase in rate. The economic simulators built into
the models can then compare the revenue generated by the fracture and compare it against the cost

13-3

of the fracture. The optimum length of the fracture can then be calculated. The typical measure of
fracturing success is the folds of increase, FOI, that a fractured well produces (Qf)
in comparison to
the production from an unstimulated well with a skin of zero (QS=J.

FOI

Q f / Qs-o

The dimensionless fracture capacity, FCD,describes the relationship between fracture's ability to flow
fluids to the wellbore and the ability of the formation to flow fluids into the fracture. The equation is:

FCD = dimensionless fracture capacity

kfw = fracture flow capacity, md-fl
k
= formation permeability, md
xf
= fracture length, ft.

For a low value, FcD c 1.6, the reservoir fluids would rather flow through the reservoir towards the
wellbore than towards and through the fracture. In these low FCDcases, long fractures are not justified. For a moderate value, FCD= 10, fractures return good FOI values. FCD'Sover 30, are considered infinite conductivity for practical purposes. Fracture length generally has the greatest impact on
low permeability reservoirs flowing low viscosity fluids (gas). Production from wells with higher viscosity fluids such as oil are also positively impacted by fracturing, but competing processes such as
long horizontal wells (with fractures) may be more effective, depending on circumstances. There may
also be a time related factor in production enhancement, as some wells will not show immediate, large
production increases from a fracture while reservoir pressures are high, but will retain deliverability
over an unfractured well when the pressure starts to drop. This is the result of the higher permeability
pathway of the fracture. In long term projections, such as Figure 13.3, a case of a low permeability
gas formation, the increased recovery from longer fractures is very significant over time.

FRACTURE LENGTH

10

12

mM

14

(Wrs)

Figure 13.3:

13-4

16

18

20 22

24

Producing fluids in a reservoir with less than infinite permeability produces pressure gradients through
the formation. This occurs simply because the fluids closest to the wellbore feel the greatest drawdown and are produced easiest. In steady state flow, the gradient or pressure contours through the
formation will show where the fluids have produced and will indicate the prevalent flow paths. The
pressure contours near fractured wells low and high permeability reservoirs will be different, simply
because the pathways in a high permeability well are predominately toward the wellbore through the
formation, while the pathways in a low permeability formation are towards the fracture. Figure 13.4
illustrates these results. Note that the flow in the low permeability has been changed by the fracture
into predominately linear flow. The fracture in the high permeability reservoir probably affects the flow
pattern near the wellbore where converging radial flow is restrictive.

~~

Pressure Distributionand

Approximate Stresmlines, Reservoir K =

0.005 md.

Figure 13.4:

The difference in the effect of the fracture on flow patterns in the high and low permeability reservoirs
is the flow capacity of the fracture. The ratio of the fracture permeability to the formation permeability
becomes a good first indicator as to whether a fracture will be useful in a formation.
The flow capacity of the fracture is dependent on several items:
1. The size of the proppant. Larger sizes have higher permeability than smaller sizes, but do not

support the fracture closure load as well.

2. The strength of the proppant. The weaker proppants drop in flow capacity very quickly because
of fines created by broken grains. Stronger proppants, although more expensive and often more
abrasive preserve flow capacity at higher closure pressures, Figure 13.5.

3. The roundness of the proppant. Angular sands have about the flow capacity of rounder manmade proppants at high closure stress. They also break easier, producing fines that can
severely reduce fracture conductivity. A 5 to 7% proppant breakage rate during placement can
reduce pack permeability by 30 to 40%.
4. Fracture width and the concentration of the proppant in the fracture. The thicker the proppant
pack, the higher the concentration of proppant in the fracture (and the better the flow capacity).
Thicker packs are harder to place because the fracture has to be made wider. Increasing fracture width can usually be done by increasing fluid flow rate or viscosity, both cause higher in-situ
fracture pressures and generate width. Width is also necessarily related to fracture height and,
to a much less extent, to fracture length.

13-5

5. The embedment of the proppant into the wall of the fracture. Embedment reduces the amount of
pore space between the proppant grains by burying part of the grain in the wall and by extruding
material up from the wall to fill other pores.

6. The damage within the fracture pack. Damage mechanisms are numerous. The most common
are: fines produced by proppant breakage; fines from the formation; polymer residue from stimulation fluids, organic deposits (wax, asphaltenes, etc.); mineral scale; salt: and biomass.

7. The closure stress of the formation. The closure stresses (both horizontal and vertical) are due
to tectonic forces, plus the local effects caused by the actual lateral fracture displacement.
Although usually related to depth, the closure stresses can be more accurately measured by insitu testing. Where testing is not available, the closure has been estimated at about 30% to 50%
of overburden.
8. Turbulence effects. Turbulence shows up as a rate sensitive skin, limiting increases in flow as

the pressure drop is increased. By running step tests (4-point test for example) at different
rates, the effects of turbulence can be identified.
1000
800
U

800

400

aoo
OO

*
p 100
g 80
80
.
I

40

k ao
i

20

r'

10

8
6

11

1 . i

I
ii

I
%a

I
1s

CLOSUIL STRESS, Dat to 1000'0

Figure 13.5:

The flow capacity of the fracture, kfw, is available from most service companies and a few of the larger
oil companies have run their own tests for specific conditions. The critical thing to remember is that
the actual fracture conductivity is about 10 to 30% of published, short term conductivity data measured between steel plates. A fracture with a finite flow capacity has a pressure drop along its length
that is proportional to the flow capacity, kfw. All created fractures have finite or limited flow capacity,
but some fracture flow capacities are so high with relation to the formation permeability that they
behave as if they had infinite flow capacity.
Where in-situ values of kfw are not available, use of the following estimation is suggested:
Expected kfw = 0.3 [(kfw lab data at Ib/ft2) / (Ib/ft2 expected)]

13-6

For this case, we will look at a simple model based on flowing fluid viscosity and reservoir permeability. The flow capacity, FCD,we require will be about 10 (fracture flow capacity ten times the formation
permeability). FCDSless than 10 are less successful stimulations (provides low FOI).
The direction that a fracture extends into the reservoir is controlled by the formation stresses and cannot be influenced away from the wellbore. The fracture growth direction is perpendicular to the plane
of least principle stress. Fractures are overwhelmingly vertical and few cases are known of horizontal
fractures.
For higher permeability formations, the effect of a fracture has been proposed by Prats to be equivalent to an enlargement of the wellbore. This is roughly equivalent to under-reaming the wellbore, but
without the damage of drilling fluids. If taken further, the folds of increase from an enlarged wellbore
would be:
FOI = Qf/ Qs=O = [ In(r&,)

re
,r

/ ln(rJrw)]

= external drainage radius

= actual wellbore radius

= effective wellbore radius (allowing for effects of fracture)

r,
Prats graphically presented the relationship between r, and dimensionless flow capacity in
Figure 13.6; and yields FCD. The figure shows that for FCD> 30, that r, = 0.5 xf; the fracture thus
behaves as an infinitely conductive flow path and there is no benefit from increasing fracture conductivity, but frac length increases may be useful if frac economics are justified. Using Figure 13.6
another way shows that for declining ,Fc, values, length is less significant and for low values of conductivity, i.e., an FCDof e 0.3, that r, depends only on frac conductivity and is independent of frac
length. Figure 5 tells the engineer where the fracture design money should be spent: increasing conductivity or increasing length.
1.oo

0.10

Figure 13.6:

13-7

Example 13.1

If the reservoir permeability is 10 md, fracture conductivity is 1000 md-ft, fracture half length is 500 ft,
wells are 2000 ft apart (re = 2000/2 = 1000 ft) and casing = 5 . 5 (rw = (5.5/2)/12)= 0.229):

FCD = 1000/(10x 500) = 0.2

From Figure 13.7, r, / xf = 0.048 for an FCD of 0.2
r, = 0.048 xf = 0.048 x 500 = 24 ft
= [In(l000/0.229) / In (1000/24)]= 7.6313.73 = 2.04
FOI = [ In(rdr,) / In(rJr,)]
Example 13.2

What effect on FOI would doubling the frac length in example 13.1 have? xf = 1000 ft

FCD = 1000/(10 x 1000) = 0.1

From Figure 13.7, r, / xf = 0.024 for an FCDof 0.1
rtW= 0.024 xf = 0.024 x 1000 = 24 ft
= [In(l000/0.229) / In (1000/24)]= 7.63/3.73 = 2.04
FOI = [ ln(rdr,) / In(rJr,)J
No change in FOI (but cost of fracture went up).
Example 13.3
What effect on FOI would doubling the conductivity in example 13.1 have?

FCD = 2000/(10 x 500) = 0.4

From Figure 13.7, r, / xf = 0.09 for an FCDof 0.4
,r = 0.09 xf = 0.09 x 500 = 45 ft
= [In(lOOO/O.229)/ In (1000/45)] = 7.63/3.1 = 2.45
FOI = [ ln(r,Jrw) / In(rJr,)]
FOI increased by 20%
In most cases, for FCDSless than 0.5, increasing xf is a waste of money. When FCDis large (>25),
however, money should be spent on increasing fracture length, not on increasing flow capacity.
The FOI may be found directly by Figure 13.7 (a modified version of Figure 13.6). This graph uses the
FOI calculated by FOI, on the left vertical axis. On the far right axis are xf/re values and the horizontal
axis is kfw/k re. The values of k and re should be known from reservoir information and kfw is available
from service company tables and graphs.
Example 13.4
If an FOI of 2 is desired for a well on 160 acre spacing (re = 1320),where k = 1 md, and kfw =
1500 md, what is the xf needed?

Find intersection of FOI and re and go across graph to intersection of vertical line from FCD,then follow curve to right axis to get Xf/re = 0.75. Since re is 1320, xf = 990 ft.
The steps are shown on the graph in Figure 13.8.

13-8

Figure 13.7:

Note that the curve can also be used to back calculate a necessary flow capacity for a chosen FOI if
the maximum fracture length is known.
Frac length and conductivity ace design objectives for the needed result of the fracture stimulation. To
achieve these objectives, a fracturing plan is formed consisting of material selection and pumping
schedule.
Hydraulic fracturing is one of the most heavily modeled areas (along with reservoir performance) in
the oilfield. Although mathematics is an exact science, the exactness is tied to the assumptions made
in the modeled behavior and the'input data. Formations, on the other hand, are very free to do what
stresses dictate and engineering attempts to model them really are nothing more than estimations.
Even within those limits, the models are useful to indicate what may occur. When combined with field
experience of fracture application and production performance, along with data analysis and testing,
the models become more accurate and useful. Experience with models in an area is a critical factor in
success of a fracturing program. Even with well designed and applied jobs, the first few wells in an
area may be failures. With good post-mortem analysis and perseverance, almost any formation can
be successfully fracture stimulated.
Fracture application starts with an examination of the continuity equation:
Volume pumped = volume lost + volume in the fracture, or

Simply put, the equation says the fracture volume is equal to the volume of fluid pumped less that volume lost to the reservoir through leakoff. Before going further, the user has to realize that the fracture
that is created may not stay within the zone and can, in some cases, grow up and/or dawn; thus the
created fracture may or may not be useful in delivering the design parameters of conductivity and
length. Further, creating a perfectly shaped fracture does not assure that the fracture is sufficiently

13-9

propped to meet conductivity. Only where proven well deliverability consistently matches fracture performance prediction, does the fracture meet design specifications.
Aside from orientation concerns, the dimensions of a frac that are of concern are the width, length and
height of the fluid filled fracture and the effective width, length and height of the propped fracture.
Since the fracture parameter that is most often mentioned is length, an examination of the factors in
relation to length is in order. The volume of a fracture is the product of its length, width and height.
Figure 13.9 is output from a fracturing simulator showing relationship between fracture height and
fracture length for a 300,000 gallon frac design in a low permeability reservoir. Note that the fracture
length rapidly decreases as fracture height increases. Fracture height is controlled by bounding beds
around the frac zone and only a few controllable variables have any control on fracture height.

Figure 13.8:

In a similar way, fluid leakoff alters the fracture length that is attainable with a set volume of fluid in a
situation where fracture height is controlled. The difference in fracture length between the low and
high leakoff areas of Figure 13.10 is very significant, and in some cases, leakoff can govern whether
an effective fracture can be created.
Fracture width is the final major factor controlling fracture length generation. Although the difference
between an average fracture width of 0.25 and an average fracture width of 0 . 5 seems insignificant,
it doubles the stored volume of fluid required or reduces the fracture volume described by length x
width x height by half for constant volume of fluid. Width is generated during the job by pressure
applied by the frac fluid. Controlling fluid loss is required for improving fracture efficiency. The most
common leakoff control is by viscosity or fluid rate: rate offsets leakoff and increased fluid viscosity
controls (reduces) leakoff. When leakoff is controlled, length and height can increase, which allow
more width to develop. Creating only one fracture also raises the efficiency of the fracture fluid; this is
a concern in a deviated wellbore.

13-10

Figure 13.10 Leakoff Effect on

Frac Length

1500
1000
500
0

w
I

+ high leakoff

I
-'

rn

+ *

low leakoff

Figure 13.10:

Since width is critical to fracture conductivity, and fracture length and conductivity are critical to productivity, there is a balancing act to get the fracture geometry which best optimizes well performance.
The relationship between fracture width, wf, and flow capacity, F ~ Dis, linked through the filling of the
width with high quality proppant that will maintain permeability when stresses are applied.
Figure 13.11 (from Halliburton Frac Book II) is a general relationship between the amount of sand
required to fill a frac of any width. The next step is to find the proppant that will support the load, as
shown in individual cases of proppant flow capacity at various stress levels from tests between steel
plates (Halliburton Frac Book 11). The final step is to determine what volume of fluid, pumping schedule and leakoff control is required to place the proppant.
The next step is to look at frac design. This is where the fracture models and experience in an area
are used to good advantage.

13-11

NOTE: For a proppant density other than 2.65, it is

necessary that only one correctionbe made.
If the proppant density is 2.65, no correction
is necessary even if the proppant is some
material other than sand.

The above data are for sand with a specificgravity of 2.65. To correct the proppant concentration
/width ratio for proppants of other densities, use the
following equations:

w (other prop) = w (graph)

2.65

SG (other prop)

(from Halliburton Frac Book 2)

-OrConc (other prop) = Conc (graph) SG (Other prop)

2.65

Figure 13.11:

13-12

FRACTURE FLOW CAPACITY

VS

CLOSURESTRESS
IN FRACTURE FOR 20140 INTERMEDIATE
STRENGTH BAUXITE ON STEEL PLATES

c.

CLOSURE STRESS (PSI)

CLOSURE STRESS (PSI)

FRACTURE FLOW CAPACITY

vs

FRACTURE FLOW CAPACITY

I

VS

CLOSURESTRESS
IN FRACTURE FOR 40/70 INTERMEDIATE
STRENGTH BAUXITE 3 N STEEL PLATES

CLOSURESTRESS
IN FRACTURE FOR 20140 INTERMEDIATE
STRENGTH BAUXITE ON STEEL PLATES

CLOSURE STRESS (PSI)

CLOSURE STRESS (PSI)

Fracture Design

Fracture Length and Width Modeling

Calculation of the fracture length and conductivity is done by one of several studies on two basic models used in fracturing research.
Models have been developed to predict fracture height, length and width based on assumptions made
for the types of formations involved.8t158 The basic models are those developed by Perkins & Kern,
which predicts a narrow, long fracture and the Geertsma and DeKlerk15 model on Khristianovic18
equations predicts a shorter, wider and taller fracture.
Development of the Perkins and Kern model begins with an expression of fracture width in terms of
fracture height:

The Geertsma-DeKlerk width is in terms of fracture length:

where:

w
hf

= fracture width, ft

= fracture height, ft

= fracture length, wellbore to tip, ft

xf
E
= Youngs modulus of elasticity
= fracture extension pressure, psi
p
By combining Newtonian flow equations that relate fracture extension pressure to injection rate and
fracturing fluid viscosity, the fracture pressure, p, for the Perkins and Kern model becomes:

(
Pp9ix,)o.u
Phf

And, for the Geertsma-DeKlerk model:

where:
p

= fracturing fluid viscosity, cp

13-15

= fracturing fluid injection rate, BPM

9i
For a constant set of conditions, the P-K model predicts fracture extension pressure (as measured at
the wellbore) increasing proportionally to fracture length raised to the one-fourth power. The
Geertsma-DeKlerk model predicts pressure decreasing proportionally to fracture length raised to the
one-half power. A comparison of fracture design calculations for the different fracturing models (from
Veatch) are contained in Figure 13.12.2

G~~~~~

Daneshy

P-K

Nordgren

(Veatch)

Figure 13.12: A comparison of fracture design information from various models.

In selecting a model, it is helpful to know the characteristics of the formation after it has been fractured. For this reason, experiments are routinely done prior to fracturing of critical wells. These field
experiments, called minifracs, use fracturing fluid without proppant. The pressure data gathered from
these minifracs, along with temperature log interpretations to determine fracture height7 as well as
sophisticated experiments using tiltmeters and mine-back operations to check fracture direction and
fracture length, are useful to justify the type of model being used. From the results of these experiments, the smaller fractures behave according to the Khristianovic model and the massive fractures
behave much closer to the Perkins & Kern predictions.
Fracture height may also be limited by the presence of overlying beds such as shale, evaporites or
other types of formation with a sufficiently different modulus of elasticity. These beds may prove difficult to fracture and may either limit a fracture, stop it from growing, or divert it into a new path.
In sandstone formations, acid will not etch the formation face; proppant must be added to the fluid to
prop the fracture open after fracturing pressure is released. The pressure used to create and drive the
fracture into the reservoir must overcome the least principle stress in the formation and crack the rock.
After fracturing, when this pressure is released, the earth stresses will try to close the fracture. Proppant is used to oppose this fracture closure and to fill the created fracture with a material that presents
a strong, permeable pathway for the flow of reservoir fluids. The amount, size and type of proppants
needed to prop a fracture open depend upon the required conductivity of the fracture, the hardness of
the formation and the stresses imposed on the proppant by the fracture closure force of the formation.

Fracture Orientation and Formation Stresses

The fracture orientation or direction is affected near the wellbore by stresses induced by drilling and in
the reservoir by the in-situ stresses in the rock. The drilling induced stresses are primarily related to
the mechanical impact forces from the bit, the fluid saturations and pressures in the formation pro-

13-16

duced by mud and cement, cement expansion (if any) and compressional loads produced by shaped
charge perforators. These forces are most apparent at and near the surface of the high energy wellbore.
Formation stresses are related to earth forces such as overburden and confining loads produced by
faulting, uplifts, tectonic plate shifts and other factors. The actual direction of the fracture extension,
once the wellbore is left behind, is perpendicular to the plane of least principle stress. This concept,
shown in Figure 13.13, requires the least energy, thus, it is the most probable direction. Proof of fracture growth in this direction by use of fracturing of mechanically loaded blocks has been contributed
by Daneshy.

Oh

Figure 13.13: Growth of a fracture is perpendicular to the plane of the least

principle stress ominThe relationship of the stress in the horizontal direction to the sum of the overburden pressure less
the pore pressure determines if the fracture will be horizontal
or vertical.

The pressure necessary to start the growth of a fracture is a function of the rock strength, the stress
exerted by burial depth and stresses in place at the borehole wall. It is routinely called fracture breakdown pressure or fracture initiation pressure and is usually derived from breakdown tests or minifracs.
The fracture initiation pressure is normally slightly higher than the fracture extension pressure. These
two pressures are shown in the surface pressure recording of Figure 13.14. In this data, the pressure
drops sharply after breakdown as the growing part of the fracture, the leading edge, leaves the high
energy wellbore and enters the steady-state condition of the reservoir. The pressure record after the
fracture leaves the wellbore is affected by leakoff, fracture friction, and the loading and behavior of
proppant in the main part of the fracture stimulation. After the fracture treatment has been pumped,
the sharp drop in pressure of Figure 13.14 corresponds to instantaneous shutin pressure, ISIP. The
loss of friction pressure in the tubulars, at the perforations, and in the near wellbore part of the fracture
goes to zero as pumping stops. At the moment of pump shutdown, the fracture is still growing, but the
effect of friction in the tubulars is nearly zero. The measured lSlP then, is the pressure necessary to
extend the fracture in the formation.

Fluid Loss
The speed of fracture growth or the propagation depends on the net rate of fluid addition to the fracture. One of the reasons the pay to be fractured was selected is because it is permeable. It is this permeability that allows some of the fracturing fluid to leave the fracture and invade the matrix of the
formation.34 This movement of fluid from the fracture to the matrix is called fluid loss. Any fluid lost to
the matrix cannot be used to create fracture length and thus fluid loss is detrimental to a treatment
whose principle design is to make a long fracture. Also, excessive loss of fluid to the matrix requires

13-17

breakdown

Pw = well head or surface

pressure

+ c t i o n loss in tubulars
\

- - - . - - - - - - * - - - -

fracture propagation or extension

pressure less hydrostatic pressure
Time

Figure 13.14: A typical fracturing treatment pressure record.

recovery time and may damage the rock in the contacted area if the fracture fluid is not compatible
with the matrix minerals or the connate fluids.
A screen out of a fracture treatment means the proppant has bridged at some point in the wellbore or
the fracture. As liquid is lost from the fluid volume in the fracture, the proppant is concentrated in the
fracture. This may occur gradually through loss to the matrix or rapidly when a growing fracture intersects a natural fracture. At this point the proppant becomes concentrated in the fracture and the fluid
must be forced around the pack. If no route is available around the proppant pack, pressure will rise
and the job is called a screen out. Treatments that form proppant blockages at or near the growing
Yip of the fracture are called tip screenouts while screenouts at the well from inadequate perforations
or fracture widths are called wellbore screenouts. These descriptions are simplistic at best.
The rate of matrix fluid loss depends upon the variables in the Darcy Law equation; pressure differential, wall area of the fracture and viscosity of the fracturing and reservoir fluids, as well as compressibility of the reservoir fluid and other reservoir factors. The rate of fluid loss may be controlled by
addition of fluid loss control additives to the fracturing fluid or by increasing stable viscosity of the fracturing fluid. Addition of fluid loss additives can reduce the conductivity of the proppant pack and must
be soluble in the produced fluids or permanent damage to the pack will occur.33
The three fluid loss equations listed by Howard & Fast2 are given below. An examination of the variables in these equations will be useful to learn the characteristics of the fluid and the formation that
affect fluid loss.
The fracture fluid viscosity limits leakoff by:

c, = 0.0469 JlhOOp,
where:

CI

= fluid leakoff, fU&

13-18

kf

Ap
c~f

= permeability of formation to fracture fluid, md

= porosity
= pressure differential between frac pressure and pore pressure, psi

= viscosity of fracture fluid, cp

The reservoir fluid viscosity-compressibility effects are from:

where:

Cl,

= fluid leakoff, f t l f i n

= permeability of formation to gas, md

~ H C= hydrocarbon filled porosity

kg

C,

= total compressibility (dominated by compressibility of gas)

The effects of a wall building (cake) additive in the fluid must be measured experimentally. It is calculated by:
Clll =

0.0164h/A

where:

Clll

= fluid leakoff, f t l 6 n

rn

= slope of plotted experimental data,

( CCiJt)

A
= cross sectional area of core, m2
The equation on the compressibility of reservoir fluid shows that gas formations can suffer a higher
fluid loss than liquid filled formations. This is true because the gas can be compressed by the higher
fracturing pressure resulting in more available pore space for leakoff, while in liquid filled formations,
the reservoir liquids must flow through the rock or be compressed to make room for the leakoff.

When using a clean fluid, in particular one that does not contain dispersed solids, leakoff is affected by
the viscosity of the treating fluid and pressure differential. A fluid with a downhole viscosity of 100 cp,
for example, would have 1/100 the leak-off rate as a fluid with the viscosity of 1 cp. The point of interest here is that for the fracturing fluid viscosity to be a controlling factor in limiting leakoff, it must be
stable at formation temperature. Viscosity of almost all polymer gelled fracturing fluids decrease with
time, especially at temperatures above 200F, and some are shear sensitive. A reduction in viscosity
at bottom hole conditions increases fluid loss.
The rate of fluid loss of fluids with solid additives dispersed in the fracturing fluid is a function of the
wall building character of those solids. Where wall building occurs, the rate can be severely limited
because a mud cake like barrier is built up on the wall of the fracture face. The efficiency of the barrier is controlled by the size range of the solid particles and the permeability of the formation. The particle sizes should be selected based on the permeability.

13-19

The combined fluid loss that a formation experiences is a combination of all of the fluid loss variables.

Estimating the wall building fluid loss coefficient is usually done by a test on a core from the formation.
Traditional fluid loss measurements have been static tests that measure a quantity of flow vs. time
with a pressurized volume of fracturing fluid above a core. The rate of fluid loss measured by these
tests is optimistic because of the lack of scouring effects of fluids and solids across the face of the
fracture that can remove or disturb the formation of a cake from a wall building fluid. The dynamic testing methods (continuously flowing fluids) are much more accurate, although they are more difficult to
run.
Besides having an effect on leak-off control, viscosity also is a factor in proppant transport and in generation of fracture width.
The differential pressure (difference of hydrostatic and pore pressure) in leakoff and the fracture
extension pressure is impacted by the quantity of sand added to the fluid. For water, the following
chart from the Baker Packer Calculations Handbook, shows the approximate weight of a gallon of
space containing a certain amount of sand with the rest of the space filled with fluids. This corrected
fluid density should be used for all hydrostatic fluid weights where the fluid contains sand.
Fracturing Design

The design of a fracturing treatment is most successful after sufficient information has been gathered
about the characteristics of the formation and fluids and the economics of the project.
The selection of a fluid must be made on the basis of compatibility of the fluid with the formation minerals as well as the economics of the fluid and how well it can maintain the desired properties of viscosity and proppant transport for the temperature, pressures and fluids encountered for the length of
the job. During the 1950s,the most common fracturing fluid was oil or gelled oil. During the late 50s
and through the 60s,the use of oil gradually gave way to polymer gelled waters. In the early 1970s
and during the period of massive hydraulic fracturing, emulsions of oil and gelled water were in common use. The mid-1970s saw the addition of foam to the ranks of fracturing fluid as well as isolated
usage of gelled and foamed alcohol and gelled carbon dioxide liquid.
Currently, the most common fracturing fluid is gelled water. Viscosity is generated in a water solution
by the addition of natural, organically derived or chemically modified polymers. These long-chained
organic materials increase the viscosity of a water solution. They are used at loadings of 10100 bsll000 gallons. Various polymers offer advantages and disadvantages in terms of the amount of
waste solid material (trash), the amount of material available for fluid loss control and the yield of viscosity at any particular loading. Because of the large volumes of fluids in fracturing treatments, cost of
the polymer is a large factor. As formation temperatures increase, fewer polymers provide effective
viscosity because of temperature degradation. Fracturing fluids for high temperature wells are very
high technology packages that may include temperature stabilizers and temperature stable viscosifiers.
The most common polymers for gelling water are:
1. Guar gum - a natural substance from the guar bean. It was one of the first water gelling agents.
Although it is one of the least expensive polymers, it does have a significant amount of debris.

2. Hydroxy Propyl Guar, HPG a chemically modified guar, generally thought to be cleaner than
guar gum.

13-20

10

11

Carrying Fluid

- PoundslGallon

13-21

12

13

3. Carboxy Methyl Hydroxy Propyl Guar, CMHPG a cleaned guar

4. Hydroxy Ethyl Cellulose, HEC - A clean breaking, manufactured cellulose polymer.

5. Carboxy Methyl Cellulose, CMC - a cellulose product.

6. Biopolymers - bacterially produced polymers - not a high volume usage item in fracturing.

The perceived need for a clean breaking polymer may be carried too far in some fracturing cases.
Reducing the amount of trash in the polymer gel will reduce the amount of fluid loss control exerted
by establishing a filter cake or wall (CII~)at the faces of the formation. For example, a 30 Ib Guar (per
1000 gal) will have substantially less fluid loss than a 30 Ib HEC, simply because of wall building
effects of debris in the dirtier Guar fluid. If the viscosity of the HEC has to be sharply increased to control fluid loss through CI, frac fluid viscosity control, then the concept of a low solids or clean fluid has
been defeated. For any situation, the optimum gel type and loading will depend on need for fluid loss
control, effect of wall damage cakes on production and the ability to recover the large volumes of
fluid lost when fluid loss is high.
A method of further increasing viscosity without adding enormous amounts of the polymers has been
to cross-link the polymer systems with materials which develop bonds between the long-chained polymers. Addition of small amounts of cross-linking material can enormously increase the viscosity of the
polymer.
Propping agents are carried by the fluid through the pumping equipment and tubulars and transported
down the fracture to keep the fracture from closing after the fracturing pressure is re1ea~ed.l~
They
include: sand, bauxite and other materials. Proppant type selection is based on the hardness of the
rock, the effect of the produced fluids and the stresses imposed by closure of the fracture. Proppant
size selection is based on strength and on flow conductivity needed to produce the fluids entering the
fracture, a function of formation permeability and viscosity of the produced fluids. The most common
proppants are graded, washed sands. These sands may be one of the mined deposits or may be from
other sources such as washed and graded river sand deposits. The strength of sand and other type
proppant and their usefulness as propping agents have been the object of intense study by a number
of authors.20-28Sands that have proved to be the best proppants are those sands that have a round
grain and are nearly pure SiO2. Presence of feldspar and other impurities weaken the grains. Other
types of proppant are graded on strength, permeability, ease of transport and resistance to produced
or injected fluids. The roundness of the grain is compared by using Krumbine roundness factors,
Figure 13.1
Typically, fracturing proppants should have a roundness of at least 0.8 to provide maximum permeability and grain contact area for high strength. In very low total stress situations, angular
proppant that will not pack tightly actually has higher flow capacity than rounder proppant. The problem is that the angular material breaks easily, in either handling or in high stress environments, creating fines that can plug the void spaces between proppant grains.
Bauxite is a manufactured proppant and is much higher strength than sand. It is commonly used in
deeper, harder formations, Figure 13.1 6. The drawbacks to bauxite proppant are a higher density
(3.3 g/cc for bauxite as compared to 2.65 g/cc for sand) and a higher cost. Costs of the bauxite may
be as much as 10-20 times the cost of a commercial fracturing sand, thus bauxite is limited to the
deeper wells where sand will not work. Because of the cost of the proppant, stimulations involving
bauxite are usually smaller than those using sand. Other manufactured proppants with intermediate
cost and strength are also available.
The size of the proppant depends upon the needed permeability and upon the strength. The larger
sizes of sand are more permeable than the smaller sizes of the sand. Permeability is a function of the
open area between the grains, Figure 13.17. A larger, consistently sized sand has a larger void area
between the grains and hence more permeability. The larger sands, however, are weaker in relationship to propping open a fracture and so some trade-off is required to establish conductivity in forma-

13-22

(Zwolle & Davies, 1983)

Figure 13.15: Adaptation of Krumbein roundness guide for proppants and gravels.

'
o

10

12

14

16

Dogth (1000's Ft I

(Veatch, SPE)

Figure 13.16: An illustration of fracture conductivity produced by

sand and sintered bauxite proppants at Increasing
depth. Closure stress is 0.7 psi/ft.

tions with a higher closure stress. Strength of the larger grains is lower because there are fewer sand
grains supporting any given unit area of the formation. This can be seen by the contact area exposed
from two packs as shown in Figure 13.1 8. Sand size is specified in U S . mesh sizes. The sand is
washed and sized into consistent size ranges. A proppant size range is specified by two screen sizes.
A size range of -1 0/+20 (usually seen as 10/20) means that the proppant passed through the 10 mesh
screen (0.079 in. or 2 mm) and is retained on the 20 mesh screen (0.033 in. or 0.84 mm). The most
common ranges such as the -101-1-1
2, -1 0/+20,-20/+40 and -40/+60 are available on a wide scale;
unusual sizes are available by special order (at a higher cost). Broad ranges of sand sizes, a -1 0+50
mesh for example, should be avoided because of low permeability.
Permeability through a frac sand is limited by the size and size range of the proppant, the confining
pressure on the proppant during the test, and the amount of the proppant in the fracture,
Low concentrations of proppant, called partial monolayers, have very high conFigure 13.19.10*26927
ductivity because only a small part of the fracture is occupied by proppant; however, collective

13-23

B
Figure 13.17: How proppant sire affects the pore size between the
proppant particles.
A: Large pore spaces in a large diameter proppant.
B: Smaller but more numerous pores in a small,
consistent size proppant pack.

strength of the few grains is very low. The most common pattern is a multilayer pack of proppant. Mixing either large or small particles into an otherwise correctly sized sand will reduce permeability as
shown in Figure 13.20. Large particles in a pack of moderately sized particles eliminate the open area
between the smaller grains by the volume that they occupy. Small particles fill in the pores of larger
grains, further reducing permeability. A single size particle pack would provide the best permeability,
but would be very expensive. Fortunately, the common size ranges usually provide sufficient
permeability.
Proppant strength is necessary to keep the fracture from closing after fracturing fluid pressure is
released. Graphs of conductivity at closure stresses (formation in-situ stresses minus the pore pressure), such as Figures 13.21 , report values of conductivity at a certain loading rate for the proppant as
closure stress increases or with time at closure. Since closure stress is related to burial depth, the
charts are often presented as conductivity vs.
The closure stress is often log derived with
good results. The conductivity values are further influenced by the thickness of the proppant pack
and the hardness of the formation. Since net closure stress increases with loss of pore pressure
(depletion), the proppant should be selected to handle the stress at abandonment pressure.
Permeability of unstressed sands can be very high and more than a little misleading. Typical sand
size ranges of 10/20, (500 darcies), 20140 (120 darcies) and 40/60(60 darcies) have extremely high
permeabilities. These permeabilities, while seemingly adequate for almost any application, are misleading. Part of the hydraulic fracturing need is to maintain a conductive pathway from the formation to
the wellbore. As the formation exerts stress on the proppant pack, the packing of the grains becomes
tighter and some grains may break, creating debris in the pack: both actions lower permeability.
The necessary flow capacity for efficient fracture design is usually achieved by the largest possible
stable proppant at an adequate thickness.
Proppant pack thickness is a function of proppant loading in the fracturing fluid and the width of the
fracture. Typical values of proppant thickness are 2 to 8 grains or about 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) to 0.4 in.
(10 mm) depending on grain size. The hardness of the formation influences the embedment of the
proppant grain into the fracture face, Figure 13.22. Very hard formations (high density, high compressive strength) such as low porosity sandstones and dolomites may crush some proppant while a soft

13-24

-x-

-x-

Figure 13.18: Simplified contrasting examples of the contact area offered

the formation by a monolayer of large and small diameter
proppant. The smaller sizes of any proppant will usually support more weight (closure pressure) and can be used in deeper
formations than the large sizes of the same proppant.

sand or a chalk at the same depth may be propped effectively by the same proppant. The difference is
that the compressive load on the proppant is spread out over more of the proppant surface when it
embeds. In hard formations, embedment is at a minimum, and the compressive load is focused at a
small point on the proppant next to the fracture wall. In this case, proppant shattering is common and
the fines created during shattering may plug the pore space of the pack.1 Other factors may also contribute to proppant pack damage, Figure 13.23. In one study, as little as 10% of the original conductivity remained after placement of the proppant.12
A third proppant strength consideration is the effect of reservoir or stimulation fluids on p r ~ p p a n t . ~ ~
Steam used in stimulation or oil recovery may dissolve the proppant pack. Hot brines, undersaturated
with respect to silica, may also deteriorate a proppant pack over a several month period. In these
cases, periodic refracturing or fracturing with a more expensive, steam or brine resistant proppant is
justified.

Closure Stress
Fracture closure stress has an enormous impact on fracture design. It is the net pressure (the in-situ
stress minus the pore pressure) that the formation exerts against the open fracture. Closure stress
affects speed of fracture closure and loading force on the proppant. It is proportional to depth and is
estimated by:

13-25

...............<>:::.:.y.....
....
. . ..*:. .;:'. ..:t'...:.
. . . . .;........
. . ..;. .
C X I i? C I L l )
?..
.........
:..
:
,
.
:
.
:
"
":
.
.....
.............; ::,:. ...:.:

A.

Examples of types of proppant arrangement

in a fracture.
A partial monolayer
6 f u l l mnolayer
C pack

....I

--

......;....::.*.*::* .......................
...
.~....,,.....
-. B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.......
.........>
......;.*..:.:-:......:;::::::::.
...........
::.;:.
.....
*:

..:..:.:a

..

.....:::;.: :.:.::.*:.;.:;..(. . .
...........
C
,!!

.I

I'

......................
. . .........
.......................
..
....... . . . . . . . . .
(Halliburton)
Figure 13.19: Effect of proppant concentration of fracture flow capacity, FC. The
peak at 70 to 90 lb11000 ft is for partial monolayer. The minimum at
300 lb/1000 ft is for a full monolayer.

Closure Stress

K ( PO,- P,) + P,

where:

= a constant with a usual value of 1/3

Pob

= overburden pressure in psi, usually 1 psi/ft (true vertical depth)

P,

= reservoir (pore) pressure (measured before fracturing)

13-26

B
Figure 13.20: How proppant size range affects the permeability and overall porosity of the proppant pack.

A: Loss of pore space in a poorly sorted or sized proppant

pack when large grains replace several porous, smaller
grains and small grains fill in the porosity between the
larger grains.
B: A simplified example of the pore space lost when large
grains are allowed in a pack of smaller material.

I
I
I
1

I
I

1
I

2ooo

4ooo
boo0 8.m 0
25
50
75
100
Cbsun Wosa @ri)
Timr 4t anr!anl cbwre stress

(rn=I

2040 Jordan 5.000 psi, 225.F

2040J o r d 8,030
~
pi, 2fS.F

TEST CONDll"S
KcL sldur*d *lilh so2
2 IM12mncontrationof proppant

(From Davies & Kuiper after Much and Penny)

Figure 13.21: Closure and time effects on conductivity of a
propped fracture.

13-27

Figure 13.22: Proppant embedment into a fracture face in:

Left: A hard formation
Right: A soft Formation
The increase in load bearing area of the proppant
into the soft formation may allow the use of a
lower strength proppant in a formation deeper
than specified by standard flow capacity graphs.

TYPICAL GEOMETRY OF A MASSIVE HYDRAULIC FRACTURE:

F W m wino length: 1oOOft
F W r e widlh at wellbore: 0.5'

--

(Davies & Kuiper, SPE)

Figure 13.23: Example of damage in a hydraulic fracture.

13-28

Fracture Treatments
Fracture Treatment Design

Fracture fluid efficiency is an expression of leakoff versus fracture created. It may be expressed in
many forms, but is in a very simple form:
Fracture volume created = Fracture fluid pumped - Leakoff
Note that nothing is stated about the shape or direction of the fracture. The effect on the production is
impacted by a larger fracture, but only when it meets the following criteria.
1. The fracture flow capacity effectively matches the ability of the formation to deliver fluid to the

fracture.
1 The main part of the fracture stays within the pay zone.

A fracturing treatment is separated into pad, slurry and overflush sections. The purpose of the pad is
to create a fracture in the formation and to seal off fluid leakoff sites through the formation. The
amount of pad volume necessary in a fracturing design will depend on the fluid loss of the formation
and the size of the slurry portion of the fracturing to be placed. The volumes of pad will range from half
or more the size of the slurry section of the fracture treatment down to zero. The amount of pad can be
too large, particularly in cases where fracture packing must be high, as in tip screenout designs.
Where permeability is low, the leakoff is low and the amount of pad decreases significantly. Pad volume is normally determined first by an estimate of the formation permeability and then by confirmation
of the amount of leakoff in a minifrac or data frac prior to the fracturing process.

The amount of slurry volume will depend on how long the fracture should be and how much conductivity is necessary for production.
Fracture conductivity, as discussed earlier, is a function of the flow capacity of the formation. For high
permeability formations very high flow capacities are needed; whereas, low permeability formations
require much less flow capacity. Achieving flow capacity in a fracture dictates increasing proppant
concentration steadily along the fracture length. In any fracture environment the amount of proppant
per unit area of the fracture decreases further away from the wellbore. Near the tip of the fracture, the
conductivity can be the smallest although conductivity should still be sufficient in this area to avoid
acting as a choke on fluids flowing toward the tip of the fracture. The rate at which proppant is
increased during the job depends on permeability, proppant carrying capacity and to a lesser extent
proppant size.
At the start of a job, the first slurry following the pad contains a relatively small amount of proppant,
usually in the neighborhood of two pounds per gallon. As the job progresses, the amount of proppant
is increased towards the higher value typically 8-1 0 or more pounds per gallon. This ramp up of
proppant is necessary in many formations especially when fracture width has not been fully developed
by the pad. The amount, speed and type of the proppant increase will depend on the formation.
During fracturing, leak-off control is required. A leak-off control stage at the start of a fracture treatment, called a pad or a prepad, creates the fracture and temporarily blocks-off the fluid leak-off sites
along the walls of the newly created fracture. Reduction of fluid loss is important because the fluid lost
from the fracture not only reduces volume and invades the matrix, it also leads to a concentration of
the proppant in the fluid within the proppant carrying part of the fracture treatment. A schematic of this
occurrence is shown in Figure 13.24. Note that as fluid loss occurs, the proppant becomes more concentrated down the length of the fracture until the material left in the fracture is nearly solid proppant.
At this point, the proppant will no longer move down the fracture and a plug is formed that stops further fracture growth. At this point, a screen-out has occurred. The fracture job must be stopped
before fluid injection pressure ruptures the pipe.

13-29

OE-1

10

'

30

~ e R A m ~ - u v w
(Gruesbeck & Collins)

Figure 13.25: Experimental bridging region described by perforation/

particle diameter ratio.

Figure 13.26: Top: idealized concept of proppant transport down a fracture.

Bottom: More probable location of proppant due to thermal,
shear and settling factors in some fluids.

13-3 1

proppant (and screening out the job) is on the order of 3 to 7 times the maximum proppant diameter. If
the fracture width is too narrow and wellbore screenout occurs, a low proppant concentration insures
only minor fill of the casing (upon screenout). In one respect, the low initial proppant concentration is
viewed as a test of acceptable fracture width for proppant injection. After the first proppant is put away
successfully, the proppant concentration is increased according to design fundamentals that deal with
the expected rate of fluid leakoff and total treatment size. As fluid is lost, the proppant becomes more
concentrated in the remaining liquid in the fracture. Since the first liquid injected is exposed the longest time to fluid loss, proppant concentration in this portion of the fluid is expected to be near maximum and cause the screenout. If the injected fluid is viewed as flowing uniformly toward the growing
tip of the fracture, the first fluid injected will be at the fractures leading edges. When this portion
becomes dehydrated by fluid loss, the stranded proppant creates a tip screenout. If the proppant was
loaded uniformly in rest of the frac fluid, the proppant packing nearer the wellbore would be less dense
since that part of the fluid would not have dehydrated as much (still would have liquid between the
proppant) and fracture flow capacity would be considerably less in that area of the fracture. This would
develop a fracture with the most flow capacity near the tip and the least at the wellbore; a complete
mismatch. Flow capacity in a fracture should be structured so that the maximum flow capacity occurs
near the wellbore. In areas near the tip of the fracture, less flow capacity is needed. Because of these
needs and the dehydration and concentration effects, proppant loading is increased during the job so
that the entire fracture can be loaded with proppant. Setting proppant loading concentrations and fluid
volumes requires knowledge of fluid leakoff and fracturing fluid behavior. Designing the proppant
increase, as well a designing the rest of the job, is commonly done with a fracture design simulation
program.
All of this information has dealt with fracturing as a stimulation mechanism in an undamaged formation. The economics and design of such treatments are controlled by the permeability of the formation
and viscosity of the produced fluids. In recent years, fracturing has been increasingly used in high permeability formations to bypass drilling or completion fluid damage. This damage is in the near-wellbore area. These stimulations are an extremely useful damage bypass tool and may be used in any
formation that has damage that cannot be conveniently removed. A frac length of 10-50 ft is common
and uses proppant loadings of 10-15 Ib/gal to achieve a high conductivity pack.
These short, high conductivity fracs are even used to stimulate high permeability, undamaged wells.
The width of the frac and the size of proppant affect the pack permeability. The necessary permeability
is a function of the expected rate of flow of fluids to the wellbore. High permeability pathways are
needed for higher permeability formations that feed in a large amount of fluid in the short linear extent
of the fracture. A formation that has low natural flow capacity through the matrix next to the fracture
does not require a conductive fracture.
A measure of the needed length of a fracture is the dimensionless conductivity, Cfd:

kw
cfd =

3.14kL,

where:
k
k

= fracture permeability
= formation permeability
= fracture width

= length of the fracture

Lf
A Cfd of 10 is considered adequate for low permeability gas completions while a c f d greater that 100
corresponds to an infinite conductivity fracture needed for high permeability oil-producing formations. A cfdof around l is considered low conductivity. The formula is an estimator only, it does not
have a produced fluid viscosity contribution.

13-32

As an illustration of necessary frac length, four formations are described in Figure 13.1 8.
B

I-ormation
Fluid
Permeability, md
Press. Grad., psi/ft
Needed Conductivity
Frac Length

Sandstone
Gas
0.05

0.433
Moderate
V. Long

Sandstone
Gas
5
0.433
Mod. - High
Moderate

Sandstone
Oil
5
0.433
High
Short

Sandstone
Oil
50
0.433
V. High
V. Short

Figure 13.27

In the illustrations, a shorter frac is useful for the oil zone, C, even though it has the same permeability
of zone B, a gas zone. The oil is usually over a hundred times more viscous than gas and flows
through the fracture with much more resistance. The 100 fold permeability contrast between zones A
and B illustrate the decisions made on frac length in gas zones. A very long frac in zone B for instance
would not be economic since the high natural flow capacity of the formation near the wellbore would
completely utilize the flow capacity of the fracture. The furthermost reaches of the fracture would not
be used until pressure drawdown sufficiently depleted reserves in the near wellbore area. The long
fracture may be a long-term production enhancement tool, although initial flow rate of a well with very
long fracture would be no higher than that from a fracture of moderate length.
When To Fracture

Not all formations may be candidates for fracturing. Fracturing is most useful where the contrast of
fracture permeability or conductivity to the permeability of the formation is high. This usually is at a
maximum in low permeability formations. The definition of what constitutes low permeability differs
from company to company and is further affected by the produced fluid viscosity and, to a lesser
extent, by the driving energy of the formation. The basic criterion for successful fracturing is whether
the fracture can make an economically, justifiable difference in the rates of production of hydrocarbons. These are the same criteria that are used to design the length of the fracture. Longer fractures
placed by massive fracturing techniques are useful for very low permeability reservoirs while shorter
fractures are used for higher permeability gas reservoirs. In the fracturing of oil reservoirs, the viscosity of the oil has much to do with the decision on fracture length. The higher viscosity fluids flow more
slowly (require more total flow capacity) than the low viscosity gas and will only justify the use of short
fractures. A more common and more efficient approach to the drainage of an oil reservoir, especially a
low API gravity oil (high density, high viscosity) is the use of short fractures from closer spaced wells
or a horizontal completion. A summary statement on the economic lengths of fractures is that the
length is limited by the contrast in fracture-to-formation permeability. The higher the contrast, the
longer the fracture that is justified for any produced fluid viscosity while the less contrasting conductivities are usually limited to short fractures. In very high permeability formations (usually over 25 md),
fracturing may be more difficult because of the need to control leakoff.
Treatment Pressure Behavior

The bottom hole treating pressure of a fracturing treatment can be used to predict some behavior patterns of the fracture in the formation. When the bottom hole treating pressure is plotted on a Log-Log
plot, Figure 13.28, the slope of the plot describes such information as unrestricted growth with confined height, stable growth with fluid loss, encountering a growth restriction, and unstable height
growth. The acceptance of the pressure description of these growth patterns has resulted in a monitoring of the fracturing treatments.

13-33

FIELD DATA

--- VARIABLE INJECTION RATE

* I

40

60

200
TIE, HlN,

IDEALIZED DATA

APPROXIRATE
1OG-LOG SLOPE
1/8-1/9

11

1-1 (UNIT!

(DOUBLE)
NEGATIVE

/t
I

1M)

ill-a
Ill-b

IV

400

600

1000

/III-C

2-1

JNTERPRETAflON
RESTRICTED HEIGHT AWD UNRESTRICTED
EXTENSION
P) STABLE HEIGHT GROWTH ( l e Moderate1
b) FISSURE OPENING
RESTRICTED EXTENSION-~MOoctlve wings
RESTRICTED EXTEt(S1ON-me octlve wlng
UNSTABLE HEIGHT GROWTH ( l e Run-away)
(Nolte & Smith)

Figure 13.28: Analysis of a plot of bottom hole treating pressure during fracturing

References
1. Waters, A.

B.: Hydraulic

Fracturing, What Is It?, J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1981), p. 1416.

2. Veatch, R. W.: Overview of Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Treatment Technology, Part 1, J.
Pet. Tech., (April 1983), pp. 677-687.

3. Veatch, R. W.: Overview of Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Treatment Technology, Part 2, J.
Pet. Tech., (May 1983), pp. 677-687.
4. Howard, G. C., Fast, C. R.: Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph Series, SPE, Dallas, 1970.
5. Hunt, W. C., Shu, W. R.: Controlled Pulse Fracturing For Well Stimulation, SPE 18972, Rocky
Mtn. Symp., March 6-8, 1989.

6. Elkins, L. E.: Western Tight Gas Sands Major Research Requirements, paper presented at
First Intl. Gas Research Conf., Chicago, June 9-12, 1980.

13-34

7. Dobkins, T. A.: Methods to Better Determine Hydraulic Fracture Height, SPE 8403,54th Annual
Mtg., Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26, 1979.
8. Daneshy, A. A.: A Study of Inclined Hydraulic Fractures, J. Pet. Tech., 1973, pp. 61-68.
9. Pye, D. S., Smith, W. A.: Fluid Loss Additive Seriously Reduces Fracture Proppant Conductivity
and Formation Permeability, SPE 4680, Annual Fall Mtg., Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 1973.
10. Davies, D. R., Kulper, T. 0. H.: Fracture Conductivity in Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation, J. Pet.
Tech., (May 1988), p. 550.
11. Ebinger, C. D., Hunt, E.: Keys to Good Fracturing, Oil and Gas J., 7 part series, 1989.
12. Roodhart, L. P., Kulper, T. 0. H., Davies, D. R.: Proppant-Pack and Formation Impairment during Gas-Well Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE Prod. Eng., (Nov. 1988), pp. 438-444.
13. Gruesbeck, C., Collins, R. E.: Particle Transport Through Perforations, SPE 7706, Formation
on Formation Damage, Lafayette, Feb. 15-16, 1978.
14. Montgomery, C. T., Steanson, R. E.: Proppant Selection - The Key to Successful Fracture Stimulation, SWPSC, p. 175.
15. Geertsma, J., DeKlerk, F.: A Rapid Method of Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulically
Induced Fractures, J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1969), pp. 1571-81.
16. Perkins, T. K., Kern, L. R.: Widths of Hydraulic Fractures, J. Pet. Tech., (Sept. 1961).
17. Nordgren, R. P.: Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., (Aug. 1972),
pp. 306-314.
18. Khristianovic, S. A., Zheltov, Y. P.: Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous
Liquid, Proc. Fourth World Pet. Cong., Rome (1955).
19. Clark, P. E., Quadir, J. A.: Proppant Transport in Hydraulic Fractures: A Critical Review of Particle Settling Velocity Equations, SPE paper 9866, 1981 SPE/DOE Low Perm Gas Symp., Denver, May 27-29.
20. Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations, RP 56,
API, Dallas (1983).
21. Cutler, R. A., et al.: New Proppants for Deep Gas Well Stimulation, SPE 9869, SPE/DOE Low
Perm. Gas. Symp., Denver, May 27-29, 1981.
22. Neal, E. A., Parmley, J. L., Colpays, P. J.: Oxide Ceramic Proppants for Treatment of Deep Well
Fractures, SPE 6816, Annual Tech. Mtg., Denver, Oct. 9-12, 1977.

23. Callanan, M. J., McDaniel, R. R., Lewis, P. E.: Application of a New Second Generation HighStrength Proppant in Tight Gas Reservoirs, SPE 11633, SPE/DOE Low Perm. Gas. Symp.,
Denver, Mar. 13-16, 1983.
24. Cutler, R. A., et al: Comparison of the Fracture Conductivity of Commercially Available and
Experimental Proppants at Intermediate and High Closure Stress, SPE 11634, SPE/DOE Low
Perm. Gas. Symp., Denver, Mar. 13-16, 1983.

13-35

25. Sinclair, A. R., Graham, J. W.: A New Proppant For Hydraulic Fracturing, paper presented at
the 1978 ASME Energy Conference, Houston, Nov. 5-9.
26. Coulter, G. R., Wells, R. D.,: The Advantages of High Proppant Concentration in Fracture Stimulation, J. Pet. Tech., (June 1972), pp. 643-650.
27. Halliburton Frac Book.

28. Much, M., Penny, G. S.: Long-Term Performance of Proppants Under Simulated Reservoir Conditions, SPE 16415, SPE/DOE Low Perm. Gas. Symp., Denver, May 18-19, 1987.
29. Zwolle, S . R., Davies, D. R.: Gravel Packing Sand Quality - A Quantitative Study, J. Pet. Tech.,
(June 1983), pp. 1042-50.
30. McDaniel, B. W.: Conductivity Testing of Proppants at High Temperature and Stress, SPE
15067, California Regional Mtg., Oakland, April 2-4, 1986.
31. Nolte, K. G., Smith, M. B.: Interpretation of Hydraulic Fracturing Pressures, J. Pet. Tech., (Sept.
1981), pp. 1767-75.
32. Nolte, K. G.: Fracture Design Considerations Based on Pressure Analysis, SPE Paper 10911,
1982 SPE Cotton Valley Symposium, Tyler, Texas, May 20, 1982.
33. Cantu, L. A., Boyd, P. A.: Laboratory and Field Evaluation of a Combined Fluid Loss Control
Additive and Gel Breaker For Fracturing Fluids, SPE 18211, Intl. Symp. on Oil Field Chemistry,
Houston, Feb. 8-1 0, 1989.
34. Clark, P. E., Barbat, 0.: The Analysis of Fluid Loss Data, SPE 18971, Rocky Mnt. Syrnp., Denver, March 6-8, 1989.

13-36

Chapter 14: Unstable Formations and Sand Control

Unstable formations are those reservoirs with poor cementation or other unusual weaknesses that
allow pieces of the formation to break away and enter the perforation or the wellbore. The most common solids production from pay zones is from poorly consolidated sandstones. A few chalks, shales,
silt stones, and rubble zones will also flow particles, undergo plastic failure, or slough particles due to
mechanical failure. This chapter will primarily deal with sand movement and control. For more detailed
information, the reader is referred to the SPE Special Topic, Sand Control, by Penberthy and
S haughnessy.
The biggest problems for predicting sand movement and for designing methods of control is that
unconsolidated formations are rarely homogeneous and formation strength is affected by changes in
water saturation and pressures over the life of the field. The flow rate that will produce sand in one
interval may cause no damage only a foot away and the control process that will halt the flow of sand
in a zone with large formation sand grains may not work in zones with smaller grains. For purposes of
sand movement evaluation and sand control, the treatment of the whole formation must often be the
same as the treatment of the worst-case zone. In formations where large sections of the formation are
weak, the worst-case control is needed, but in formations where only a few feet of the zone will move,
selective perforating can often avoid the need for sand control. The answer, obviously, is to determine
which sands will move. Unfortunately, this may be difficult. Reservoirs that did not produce sand when
first discovered may produce sand when the reservoir pressure declines or when water encroaches.
The best indicators of current and future sand movement are available from the formation behavior on
initial flow tests from examinations of core and from behavior of offset wells or similar fields.
The type of particles that are moving is also a concern. Penberthy and Shaughnessy differentiates
between load-bearing particles and mobile fines that may move through the formation. The mobile
fines are not part of the mechanical structure of the formation. Trying to stop these fines of clay or
feldspar would require very small gravel packs and result in drastically impaired production. Allowing
them to pass through the pack with the flowing fluids prevents their buildup and subsequent permeability damage at the interface of the pack and the formation.

Sand Cementation
Whether the sand is torn loose by drag from the flowing fluids or in response to the effects of pressure, sand movement only occurs when the strength of the formation is not adequate to hold the
grains in place at the production rate of the well. Sand movement only occurs when there is poor
bonding or cementation of the sand grains. Most sandstone formations are bonded together by clay,
quartz, calcite, mineral growth or precipitate bonding. This cementation of the sand grains, plus the
strength of the grains and the pressure of the fluids within the pores offsets the weight of the sediments on top of the formation (the overburden load).
A rough rock classification system has emerged in the literature. The BHN is the BriNell hardness
number used for hardness classification on metals.

Rock Classification System

Term
unconsolidated
partiallsemi consol.
friable
consolidated
hard
medium
hard
v. hard

BHN

Geologic Equivalent

nocement
pieces easily crushed w/fingers
pieces crushed when rubbed hard
pieces crushed with forceps

2-5
5-10
10-30
30-50
50-125
>125

14-1

Interestingly, many of the formations that produce sand have similar character:
1. usually shallow ( ~ 8 0 0 ft
0 or c2400 m),
2. normally young (Miocene or later),

3. keeping the hole open during drilling may be difficult (large incidence of caving and hole erosion
during pumping),

4. sand production from any unbridged face of the formation may begin with the first flow of fluids,
5. a significant portion of the formation strength is from resident fluid cohesive forces,
6. small changes in conditions (fluid saturations, flow rates, overburden loads) produce sand).

Cementation is the dominant effect in consolidated formations in resisting particle movement from the
drag forces exerted on the grains by flowing fluids. Cementation is developed in several ways but is
most commonly thought to be associated with precipitation of minerals from water in the pores. The
localization of the cementing precipitate at the grain-to-grain contact is caused by a pressure dissolution and precipitation cycle that is brought on by the application of overburden on the point-to-point
contacts of the grains. At the high pressures associated with the point-to-point loading, accelerated
dissolution of the contacting grains takes place at the point of contact and the water surrounding the
active sites becomes over-saturated with an ion. As the reaction proceeds, the pointed contact areas
of the grains become flatter, spreading the load over a wider area of total contact. At some point, the
increased contact area created by this method can withstand the overburden load and the formation
strength is stabilized. Since the point-to-point contacts are no longer creating super saturation of the
matrix minerals in the water, the water precipitates ions from water at the contacts of the grains. The
result is that the grains are cemented together. This basic dissolution and precipitation process at
the grain contact is only one method of cementation. Additional application of the same type of cement
or another cement may occur as the connate water comes to equilibrium with the conditions of temperature, pressure, and mineral composition. Quartz overgrowth around calcium cementation or clay
development at the grain boundaries is a sign of secondary cementing.
Formations may not form cementation for a number of reasons. Low compaction loading caused by
shallow burial or very large, load supporting arches above the pay (e.g., grabens) or faults may block
the necessary stresses and leave high porosity and poor bonding. Additionally, when the pores are
filled with hydrocarbon, mineral solution or precipitation from water cannot take place. High pore pressure (geopressures) also reduces the compaction loading on the formation since the pore fluid
assumes more of the overburden supporting load.
Other forms of in-pore chemical reactions such as ground water leaching of the matrix grains or dolomitization may heavily modify the cementation or the grain size.
Formation Characterization
The types of formations most likely to produce sand are those with a low compressive strength. There
are three categories of the weak formations: friable, partially consolidated, and totally unconsolidated.* Friable formations are those formations that have adequate strength to maintain shape when
removed from the well as a formation core. They can be broken by hand contact into small fragments
or ground into individual grains with little more than strenuous finger pressure. Partially consolidated
formations are those formations that have some degree of compressive strength but may be altered
by chemical or physical changes (such as drying) to the point where bonding between the grains is no
longer effective at controlling the movement of sand grains. Totally unconsolidated formations are
those that have no compressive strength. Drilling in these formations is usually little more involved
than washing the bit through the zone and establishing a mud cake. All these formations may subside

14-2

(shrink) during production. In all of these formations, any chemical or physical change of the bonding
medium may start sand production.
The onset of sand production may be triggered by the first fluid produced from the formation or by a
number of incidences during the productive life of the reservoir. Formations that are totally unconsolidated may produce sand from the first day of fluid removal. The simple drag on a formation particle by
a flowing fluid may be sufficient to move the grain and carry it into the perforation. Drag on a particle is
like standing in a strong wind. As the air hits flows around you, it is exerting a force in the direction of
the air. The problem is increased by high fluid viscosity, and high flow rates during drawdown. The
effect of increasing drag from flowing fluid viscosity can be visualized by comparing standing in a
5 mph breeze to standing in a 5 mph river current. Other factors that may increase sand production
are change in flowing pressure, water influx, brine salinity change, acid stimulations, or other physical
or chemical disturbance of a weak cement.
Discussion on sand movement factors will focus on what are thought to be the three largest contributors: fluid flow velocity (drawdown), water influx and pressure decline. The effects of drawdown are
related to the velocity of the fluid through the perforation, the stability of the perforation cavity and creation of temporary arches of sand grains (Figure 14.1).314 An arch is a spherical shaped cap of interlocked sand grains that prevents further sand movement at some constant pressure and flow rate.
The action of the grains pushing in on each other forms a strong support similar to the Roman arch
over doorways and windows in architecture. The arch can support enormous weight by spreading out
the load. Changes in rate or shut-ins will destroy arches, and sand production will continue until a new
arch forms. Arches cannot form in every formation. The formation of an arch is dependent on the
grains size and the gap that must be bridged with an arch. If the gaps between the solid surfaces of
the slot, perf or crack are too wide, the grains will simply pass through the gap. Established theory on
the size of the gap that can be bridged indicates that formation sand grain sizes of 1/7 to 1/3 of the
gap width will form arches in one direction flow. Smaller particles will pass through the gap and larger
particles will wedge into the gap and may not break up when pressure or flow is changed. Although
existence of arches is well proven, their effect is only beneficial in wells that produce at a steady flow
rate.

Figure 14.1: An idealized arch of sand grains around an

opening. Arches are stable only as long as
the flow is undisturbed.

Because of pore fluid removal and pressure change, the maximum possible drawdown varies during
the life of a reservoir with some readily recognizable period^.^^^
1. Early production stage: when the perforation cavities are still slim and have a permeability-damaged zone around them. (This period is immediately after overbalanced perforating and before
flow, surging, or washing.)

14-3

2. Stable production stage with enlarged perforation cavities. (This assumes some arch support in
the formation with no perforation tunnel collapse).
3. After water production starts, some sand is produced by fluid flow.
4. The tendency for unstable sand production increases with reservoir pressure depletion.
Sand production after water breakthrough is common in unconsolidated and friable sands. Reduction
or loss of the capillary bond between the sand grains is the main reason for the formation strength
loss, although clay modification by brine salinity changes may also have an effect in some cases.
Some authors report that sand production should cease after the water flow stabilizes, unless the
drawdown exceeds some critical rate. Unfortunately, the critical rate may be below the economic rate.
Morita, et. al., list several factors that contribute to sand production after water breakthro~gh.~
1. Loss of capillary pressure.
2. Flow friction increases since increasing water saturation lowers the relative permeability to
hydrocarbons. (A higher drawdown is then necessary to maintain oil rate.)

3. Reservoir pressure is generally low when water influx occurs.

In the final stages of reservoir depletion, sand grains may be loosened by shear failure caused by
increasing net overburden stress. This period is often marked by noticeable formation subsidence and
perhaps surface subsidence and casing collapses. Pressure maintenance can reduce the severity of
this problem.
Methods of predicting the occurrence of sand production include: drillstem tests, core analysis, logs or
production data. Methods involving acoustic and density measurements are available for estimating
sand movement as are various destructive techniques based on sand production monitoring at various flow rates using produced fluid sampling or sand probes. Sand production testing involves producing a well (single interval) at successively higher flow rates until: (1) sand is produced, (2) the flow
capacity of the completion is reached, or (3) the maximum drawdown is reached. In multiple zones,
the test should be performed on each interval. This type of test may destroy the wellbore integrity of
the wellbore, making gravel pack volume assessment more difficult or resin consolidation treatments
impossible. It is usually used where redrilling the pay is economical when compared with unnecessary sand control measures.
Sand Movement Prediction
There are several methods of evaluating the potential to produce sand from a formation. The oldest methods are generally based on rock mechanics information and use the Mohrs circle approach that estimates
stress and response from stress on the formation. In this analysis, which has been used for formation
strength assessment since the early 1970s, the modulus of elasticity and strength at various pressures are
utilized to determine whether the formation will turn loose in catastrophic type flow.521
The Mohrs circles of Figures 14.2 and 14.3 are generated from data collected during triaxial compression
tests. When load conditions reach any point along the boundary of the Mohr envelope, the strength of the
material is overcome and part of the material can slip or flow. In Figure 14.2, two strength contributions are
illustrated: Friction between sand grains and cohesion or cementation between rains. The friction is tangent 0,and cementation strength is the value of strength at o, = 0 (intercept). In the very low range of
confining pressures, loose Ottawa sand has been used as the model. The circles are drawn for confining
stress and peak axial stress. In the example of Figure 2, the failure envelope is linear with a 34 shearing
stress.2 The small amount (4 psi) of shear stress at the intercept is due to either cohesion or the stretching
of the rubber membrane containing the sand. At higher confining pressures, the sands often do not give a
sharp indication of failure. This is particularly true with angular sands.

EB

144

Cohesion or Cementation
Contribution to Strength

Increasing

LOAD
(EFRCTIVE STRESS ( r p ) , psi)

Figure 14.2: Mohr envelope strength plot.

Figure 14.3: Mohr failure diagram at low confining stresses.

More recent methods of analyzing sand production involve the use of log-derived data. Log data have
been more acceptable than core data in most analysis of sand flow potential since the cores had to be
removed from the reservoir, transported and repressurized during testing. The relaxation and recompression of the core often disturb the matrix strength and bonding to a point where information generated
showed a higher than real indication of sand movement. Using log-derived data appears to be a more
acceptable method of evaluating sand control potential since it measures the formation in near-in situ
stress forms. The data analysis from two published ~ t u d i e s ~
indicates
~ ~ that log analysis is much superior
to the conservative core tests for evaluating the potential of sand flow.
Many of the techniques used in sand flow prediction are based on modeling of the perforation or cavities.
These arch values may be relatively small as measured by Bratli* and R i ~ n e s ~as, arches with radius of
1.8 to 2.0 cm for Ottawa sands but are probably dependent on grain size and shape and flow conditions.
Most of the causes for failure fall into general classes: compressive failure (elastic-brittle spalling), tensile
failure (deformation force from flow of fluids exceeding a threshold, Figure 14.4), and erosion (production

14-5

of individual grains from overcoming cohesion). Erosion is a special case of tensile failure. In tests forming
Figure 14.4,Shell illustrates that sand production from drawdown pressure is related to formation strength.
The safe area in Figure 14.4is below the line.

Figure 14.4: Drawdown pressure versus unconfined compressive strength (field data).

Tensile and compressive forces may be related to sand movement by equations in the Shell reference and
plotted as shown in Figure 14.5. Note that risk decreases when stable cavities are supported and risk
increases as the reservoir is depleted.
ssive

Figure 14.5: Sand stability diagram.

Tensile failure is triggered by excessive drawdown. The gpn is a normalized pressure drawdown gradient.
The gn, is heavily influenced by cavity size and permeability (which is a function of grain size). Anything
that decreases permeability (mud, poor perfs, fines, relative permeability, etc.) will increase the drawdown
and increase the tendency to produce sand.
The relationship of drawdown to sonic traveltime was plotted for several wells in Veeken's paper,
Figure 14.6.A risk region was established where sand-free production was expected to the left and below,
while sand production was expected to the right and above. This curve is not good for all cases but shows
that data from a multiple well project can be used in a continuing optimization plan.
Sonic logging and supporting waveform analysis allow collection of continuous shear and compressional
data. Elastic moduli relationships from transit times or velocities are shown in Figure 14.7F2 A rigorous
evaluation is available form D o m e r ~ i c o . ~ ~

14-6

Figure 14.6: Total drawdown versus transit time for intervals with
and without sand problems.

t i

Note: c o e ~a = 1 s x

i010

I 6?b in @Cm3

fin M
., .I

Ii

(Schlumberger)"
I

Figure 14.7

Compressive strength estimations from compressional traveltime are available from Onyia:

c, =

1.oo

4-

2.0

0.0000515 (Atc- 23.87)

C, = ultimate compressive strength (unconfined), psi

Atc = compressional traveltime (psedft)
The fit with this type of equation on wells in general is shown in Figures 14.8 and 14.9 from Onyia.
Attempts at compressive strength fits from other logs are shown in Figures 14.10-14.13 (also from
~ n y i aF4
)

14-7

Figure 14.0

Figure 14.9

Figure 14.10

Further evaluation of rock strength and sand control potential shows that almost all marginally or poorly
consolidated formations are sensitive to the amount of drawdown as measured to be the difference of bottomhole flowing pressure subtracted from current reservoir pressure. As expected, formations with a rela-

14-8

40

U)

10

UP

too

A RAY. m

UP

uo

UP

ZOO

(Onyia)

Figure 14.11

0.l

LI

2.1

1.1

BULK DWSJ7Y. C/CW

LI

(C iyia)

Figure 14.12

mnm. WYU

J
.Ernmssz
Rw
(Onyia)

Figure 14.13

tively high reservoir pressure can stand more drawdown than formations that have nearly been depleted.
There is also information available that indicates that higher permeability formations, and particularly those

14-9

with high relative permeability to the fluid that is flowing, are less susceptible to sand movement than are
formations which have suffered relative permeability decreases due to addition of a flowing phase.
Orientation of the perforations may also be a factor in cavity (perforation) stability. Cavities oriented along
the plane of maximum stress are more stable than cavities oriented perpendicular to maximum stress.
Although the effect has been d~cumented,~
there are few cases where stress directions are known in sufficient detail to take advantage of the marginal addition of stability.
Studies of marginally consolidated core have shown that changes in rate, changes in confining pressure,
changes in differential pressure, and relative permeability are all significant movement factors in a formation where sand has a potential to move. Likewise, in formations that are strongly consolidated, it is virtually impossible to establish fines movement. In marginally consolidated cores, changes in one or more of
the variables would produce sand for a short time. However, after several minutes of sand production, new
arches would form in the free face of the formation and sand production would cease. Catastrophic failure
or continuous production of sand usually only occurred after a second flowing fluid phase was introduced
into the pores of the rock. The decreased permeability caused an increased pressure drop across the sand
face (to achieve a certain flow rate), and the formation was disaggregated in response to the differential
pressure.
Core tests have been described by Chow15 that measure the tendency of sand production. Most use triaxial tests, but a few measure the sand dispersed from the free face of a core.15 Chows work to find the sand
free index Sf, has centered on a correlation of compression and shear wave derived compressive
strength.$ The strength estimation from man-made cores is shown in Figure 14.14 for shear wave and
Figure 14.15 for compressive wave, indicating that these values, which can be calculated from logs, are at
least reasonable accurate. The Mohr-Coulomb method appears to be conservative, Figures 14.16 and
14.17, in assigning need for sand control.
1000
900

Cs-Vs (psi1

800

700

600

500
400

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Cs-measured (psi1

Figure 14.14: S-wave predicted and measured rock strengths of cement sand cores.

Sand production may often be noted when the wells are started up after a shutin or when the flow rate
is changed.4i5 Shut-ins and rate changes often disturb the arches or other stable particle arrangements and change the pore pressure in the near wellbore, resulting in short term changes in sand production rate. As a point of interest, the incidence of casing collapse is also highest immediately
following production start-up or a drastic change in production rate. Casing collapse is associated with
earth shift forces produced by upper sediment subsidence following creation of voids (open areas) in
producing intervals. The formation subsidence places a downward pull on the casing that leads to
buckling.
Additional information on sand production may be obtained from the production history of offset wells,
drilling records, and logging information, including density, sonic, caliper, openhole gamma ray and
induction measurements. These logs form the basis for strength calculations. Monitoring of a suspect
well is a viable tool to detect the initiation of sand production. This early monitoring of sand movement

14-10

loo0
900

800 t

700

600
C 8 - b (psi)

500

400

300
200
100
n

Figure 14.15: P-wave predicted and measured rock strengths of cement sand cores.

9.00
8.00
7.00

.
.
.

1 .00

0.00
3566 3595 3597 3599 3750 3752 3755 3757

hm m lln)

Figure 14.16: Comparison of predicted sand free index Well A.

3800

3820

3840
3860
Log apth lm)

3880

3900

Figure 14.17: Comparison of predicted sand free index Well B.

is very useful in reducing equipment damage and avoiding processing (and disposal) of large amounts
of sand. When sand production does become apparent, a design should already be in place to convert
the well to a sand control completion. Field wide monitoring can supply large amounts of flow rate vs.
sand flow rate data that are useful to generate guidelines on the sand-free production rate.

14-11

Sand Control Considerations

When a formation has the capacity to produce sand, a decision must be made on whether to:
(1) reduce production rate to a level where sand will not be produced, (2) allow the sand to produce
and dispose of it from surface facilities, or (3) complete the well in such a manner that sand production
is prevented at the required production rate. Although reducing production rate is a preliminary step in
some reservoirs to evaluate the sand free flow rates, it is often not the most economical course of
action.
Excessive sand production depends on facility design and disposal difficulties. It is usually in excess
of 0.1 ?40 (volumetric). Allowing the sand to produce has been recommended several times, particularly where sand grains from friable or marginally consolidated formations are ripped loose by high
velocity flow. Because this type of sand production is caused by drag forces created by produced fluid
velocity, enlarging the wellbore will result in less velocity per unit of area at the sandface. When the
wellbore has enlarged so that the velocity is less than the critical rate necessary to break sand grains
off; the sand production will cease. This assumes, of course, that the enlarged wellbore does not collapse. This decision to produce the sand can be a hazardous one: voids behind the pipe caused by
sand production may lead to subsidence and casing collapse. The method is most successful in friable formations. Under reaming an open hole completion is a shortcut to a cavity completion in these
reservoirs.
A special case where sand production improved productivity without creating an unstable condition
was seen in a heavy oil deposit in Canada. In this instance, an early sand production of 50% of produced fluid volume was produced with progressive cavity pumps. Within six months, sand production
dropped to less than 5% and oil production was stable. No wellbore collapses were seen. Although
these cased hole completions were originally thought to have formed cavities on the outside of the
casing, the use of adsorptive tracer dyes showed that open channels had actually been created
between wells. The open channels, which were fed and stabilized by a foamy oil drive, successfully
produced the high viscosity oil. Wells in the field that were gravel packed did not produce economially.^^ This is a very unusual case.
The task of clearing the sand from surface equipment and cleaning and disposal of the oily sand is
costly. The sand production option often becomes increasingly expensive. It is a viable solution for
some reservoirs however, and if a stable enlarged wellbore can be established, the completion has
the advantages of a low-cost completion and unhindered production.
For most formations that produce sand, sand control completions offer the most practical solution.
Sand Movement Prediction
Sand movement prediction is always of interest but rarely practical to diagnose whether a borderline
completion needs sand control. In the case of CT completions, the decision is no different than a traditional completion. For repairs, the decision is already in effect. Although a great many predictive models are available, their use has seen a general decline. The most supported reasons are:
1. Difficulty in getting realistic predictions in nonhomogeneous formations. The biggest difficulty in

predictive methods in the nonhomogeneous formations is that many engineers base a gravel
design on a small interval to control extremely fine sand. This is a mistake since the major productivity areas are the higher permeability sections. The lower permeability sections can be
either by-passed in perforating or allowed to invade the gravel pack in their area. Even though
they damage the gravel in a small area, this will not significantly decrease the production, and
the higher permeability of the larger gravel should offset any loss of partial completion.
2. Sand production tendency and the controlling factors change significantly as any field matures.
The factors which have been identified as sanding problem areas include overburden and overburden changes, localized drawdown, start-ups and shutdown, cyclic production, water

14-12

encroachment, and numerous effects of depletion. Many formations which are thought to be
safe during initial testing will fail and produce sand near the end of the project life.
3. Although money can be saved from diverting spending for initial sand control operations until

later in the life of the well, the risk of failure of placement of the sand control also increases significantly. In offshore wells, workover rig-based reentry of a well to install a remedial sand control
completion may be significantly more expensive than an initial completion, even though the cost
of the completion may be deferred.

Sand Control

There are ten general methods of sand control. Figure 14.1 8 illustrates several of the methods and
variations.
1. No Control. The decision to produce sand and dispose f it at the surface is not made lightly.

Figure 14.18: Sketches of sand control methods.

A is a blast joint for control of pipe erosion.
B is resin consolidation of the formation.
C is screen only. Formation sand fills annulus.
D is a gravel pack with prepacking of gravel
beyond the casing. The prepacking may be a
fracture in some instances.

Although the process is effective in some cases (such as heavy oil), the produced sand is a disposal liability and must often be treated before disposal. The problems of erosion and potential
subsidence issues including casing collapse also must be addressed.

2. Cavity creation. Some formations with low to marginal strength will form cavities around the wellbore or perforations as the flowing fluids removes sand. The cavities will grow until the velocity
of the flowing fluid creates loss of a drag force on the grain than the cohesiveladhesive forces
trying to hold the grain in place. Cavity formation requires that the cavity is stable (does not collapse). In these formations, a cavity will for during the initial sand production and very little sand
will be produced afterward. Changes in rate, pressure and pressure cycling from start-uplshutdown and lift systems will at least sometimes increase sand flow. Influx of water and nearing for-

14-13

1. More effective control of sand in long intervals.

2. Less subject to deterioration with time than the resin coated bonding techniques.

3. Can be used at any stage of the well life; even in wells that have already produced sand.
4. Allows high productivity from virtually any type of formation and can accept any permeability

variance in the formation.

The disadvantages of gravel pack completions are:
1. The wellbore is restricted due to the presence of gravel inside the wellbore screen or wellbore/

liner annulus.
2. Almost all well repairs require removal of the screen liner and gravel pack prior to work.
3. Screens must be selected to resist corrosion and erosion by produced fluids.
4. Separation of injected fluids or isolation of undesirable water or gas production is very difficult.

5. The sand involved in gravel packing operations is susceptible to attack in thermal wells.

In order to design a gravel pack completion, the size of the formation sand grains and the fines must
be known.32b3 Gravel size in a gravel pack is selected based on the size of the sand in the formation.
Several sand sieve analysis are required to accurately describe the formation with a minimum an
analysis every 1 to 5 ft of pay zone. Sand sizes may change over the height of the zone and a screen
or gravel pack that is sufficient to control the sand in one section of the well may be too coarse in
another section.
The principle of the gravel pack is that the gravel will create a second, high permeability matrix on
which the sand grains will bridge and form a stable interface without invasion, Figure 14.19.34*35Flow
of fluids are allowed but the movement of sand is stopped. The best gravel pack designs put this contact area as far out away from the screen as is possible. The completion objectives are twofold:
(1) create as little resistance to fluid flow as possible, and (2) stop sand production. The completion
uses the largest size gravel that will stop the smallest formation sand. Permeabilities of the common
sizes of gravel are shown in Figure 14.2029-31The variations in permeability at the same size ranges
are caused by contamination of the gravel with larger and smaller particles. Note that the permeability
reduction from initial permeability can be severe with even small amounts of under- or over-sized
gravel. The permeability of the undamaged gravel ranges is exceptionally large in comparison to the
permeability of a formation. The choice of gravel size or even tolerance of all grains within the size
range might seem unimportant since the gravel permeabilities are so high. However, a Darcy law calculation of linear pressure drop produced by typical flow rates through undamaged and damaged
packs in comparison to an open hole will illustrate the problem: a void space (i.e., the open hole) is
still much higher in flow capacity than even the best sorted gravel. Even a thin boundary of low permeability gravel will create a intolerable restriction.
The chief concerns in gravel selection are:
1. Stopping the formation sand or the flowing grains or blocks of the formation without allowing

the small grains to invade the proppant or gravel pack. Early on, investigators found that the size
of the gravel could be selected either on a bridging philosophy or a philosophy of stopping all
invasion. Because bridges were found to be inherently unstable at the high end of the bridging
range (pore throats = 5-7 grain diameters), the failures of these bridges could lead to zones of
mixed gravel and formation grains, a result that ended in extremely low permeability near the for-

14-16

(Arnoco)

Figure 14.19: The fineslgravel interface of a thin section photo. The

gravel Is -40+60 mesh, and the formation is the Trinidad
U sand.

Sample
v-2

P-8
P-8
L-3
H-2
v-9
v-1
P-19
v-7
P-16

Mesh
Size
20-40
20-40
20-16
10-20
40-60
40-60
40-60
12-20
16-30
16-20

Oversize

(%I
U

(w

k,

k,

(darcies)

(darcies)

19.2

63

132

Undersize

k Reduction

(%I
48

0
0
0
35.8
20.9
49.2
1.5
0
32.4
(from Boulet) Journal of Petroleum Technology

Figure 14.20: Results of Permeability Determination for Selected Samples

mation gravel interface. The absolute stop criteria developed by such authors as Saucier
focused on the lower bridging end of the spectrum and generally culminated with about a 6:l
median size of the gravel as compared to a median size of the formation grains.
2. Maintaining high flow conductivity over the life of the well has generated into much more of a

concern since fracturing has been added to the conventional packing process. Part of the reason
for confusion in sizing is the fact that fractures spread the drawdown out and less fluid velocity
from the formation is expected. This means that there will be less energy to carry formation
grains into the pack. The opportunity is to be able to use this lower pressure drawdown and flowing differential to an advantage by using the higher conductivity, higher permeability gravels that
should result in much higher flowrates.

14-17

3. Protecting the screen from high velocity flow lengthens the life span of the screen. Screen plugging has been identified by several researchers as occurring from:
a. drill-in fluids that contain solids,
b. precipitated materials from interaction of produced fluids with completion fluids,
c. a precipitate reaction of produced fluids (scale asphaltenes, paraffin, etc.),
d. fines from the formation in the form of clays, minerals, etc.
4. Aspects of gravel placement. The one weak point in the application technology for any sand control method is effective placement. Work has been progressing on several fronts, but the most
promising methods of placement include alteration of fluids and equipment to better utilize fracturing tip screen-out philosophy.
Variances in the gravel pack permeability are caused by size differences within the specified gravel
size range, roundness (Figure 14.21) and fines and debris.36 The sorting of the sand in the formation
can also play a major role on the gravel required for control. Smaller size, lower permeability gravels
are required to halt small formation sand.

(zwolle & Davies, 1983)

Figure 14.21: Adaptation of Krurnbein Roundness to

rate proppants and gravels.

Since sand sizes may change in a forGravel size is specified by the size of the formation
mation from top to bottom, the gravel size is selected to stop the finest sand in a well. For optimum
practical work, a size range of gravel must be specified that will stop the passage of the formation
sand without unduly restricting the fluid flow. The sand size is plotted on a reversed semilog plot as
shown in Figure 14.22. Note that the gravel is listed as -1 0+20 mesh. This means that all the grains
will pass through a 10 mesh screen (U.S. standard sieve sizes) and will be retained (will not pass)
through a 20 mesh. The size is correctly shown as -1 0+20 mesh. The position of the curves of the
sized gravel and the formation sand is a quick indication of size. On this inverted X-axis semilog plot,
the finer sands are to the right (decreasing size scale), Figure 14.23. The slope of the middle sections
of the plots are an indication of the sorting (the grouping of the grain sizes). When the grains are all
very close to the same size as in the case of the -10+20 mesh gravel, the slope is nearly vertical.
In natural formations and sands, many different grain sizes are present. In these more widely varied
grain size cases, the sorting is said to be poorer. Permeability decreases with poorer sorting. After
plotting the sand sieve sizes on the plot of cumulative weight, Enter the graph at the 50% weight
retained point (y-axis) and intersect the formation sand size plot.37 In Figure 14.24, three sands sizes
are plotted. Since the gravel must be selected to control the smallest sand in the formation, only the

14-18

100

1.0

0.1

0.01

Figure 14.22: A plot of a -10+20 mesh sand. The vertical nature of the center section of the
plot shows very good sorting (Minimum
of fines and coarse particles).

loo

3:

Bi
10

O11854 3 2
98?654 3 2
98761% S2
0.1
0.m
0.001
slm lb,in.

cl

(Patton 8. Abott, PEI, 1981)

Figure 14.23: Plots of uniformly sorted and poorly sorted sand

samples on an inverted X-axis semilog plot.

smallest sand is of concern. The 50% intersection of this plot results in an x-axis intersection of about
0.004511.The gravel should be sized four to eight times this 50% size (a modification of Saucier's37
work). This results in a gravel size of 0.01 8 and 0.036. With the help of the sieve size ranges in
Figure 14.25, the 0.018 and 0.036" sizes translate into 40 mesh and 20 mesh respectively. The gravel
pack would need -20+40 mesh gravel. Gravel is sold in common size ranges. If the calculations yieid
a non standard gravel range, select the next smaller common range. Common U S . mesh size ranges
for gravel are: -4+8, -6+10, -8+12, -1 2+16, -1 0+20, -1 2+20, -16+20, -20+40, and -40+60. The gravel
must meet specific roundness and strength criteria and have as little fines or large particles (out of
size range) as possible. The larger gravel size ranges are intended to control sand production in formations with large sand particles and the smaller gravels are necessary in the fine sand reservoirs.
The objective is to use a gravel that will stop sand production. For example, if the 50 percentile formation sand grain size is 0.006 in. (0.15 mm, about 98 mesh), 4 and 8 times this size is 0.024 and
0.048 in. which is equivalent to 29 mesh and 16 mesh respectively. Pick the next smaller range of
gravel from the common sizes. A -20+40 U.S. mesh gravel (0.017 to 0.033 in. or 0.42 to 0.84 mm)
should be selected. In a finer sand with a 50 percentile size of 0.0035 (170 mesh), 4 and 8 times
would give a minimum control gravel size of 0.014 in. (0.35 mm, 45 mesh) and 0.028 in. (0.71 mm,
25 mesh). In this case, a -40+60 U.S. mesh gravel would be useful.

14-19

100

90

eo
4 40

a 50
U

30
U

20

2 10
0
0.05

0.01

0.0001

0.001

Sand grain diameter,

in.

(Sawolo et al., 1983)

Figure 14.24: Sand size distribution for three samples.

In some cases, the smallest sized sand in a formation sequence is considerably smaller than the other
sands. If selecting the gravel based on this smallest sand would result in a gravel of more than one
common size range smaller than the gravel required to control the larger sand grain zones, consideration should be given to not perforating the interval with the smallest size sand. This would be especially true when the small sand size represents only a small portion of the pay thickness or where the
small sand size zone is in communication with a larger sand zone (the larger grain zone will effectively
drain the smaller grain zone).
Alternate Gravel Sizing Methods

Current gravel pack completion designs generally do a good job at preventing reservoir sand invasion
with reservoir sand that has a normal distribution pattern. When the formation sand is on either
extreme of the normal sorting of coarse and fine particles, the question arises as to whether a bare
screen could be used or is a frac pack needed to control fines movement. For reservoir sand distributions that are skewed towards finer sands and/or where large amounts of fines predominate, skins
from traditional gravel pack and screen completions can be high (may even increase with time) and
failures have occurred.
Although gravel packing is a well established completion mechanism, the amount of damage seen
after packing is often severe. The cause of this damage takes many forms, but increasingly, the size
and presence of formation fines is recognized as one of the major contributors to this damage. The
action of fines as a flow restriction in a gravel packed completion is known, but often only considered
as an existing condition immediately after the completion. Often however, skins increase over time
with production, with migrating fines blamed as a major culprit. There is data that the gravel pack
design may actually be a contributor to this damage in some cases.53
4
grains (clay sized fines) from the forThe principle fines suspected are sub 325 mesh ( ~ 4 microns)
mation. The origin of the fines is still a point of research, but a few causes are understood about what
turns these fines loose in the formation. When these fines are present in the right size or in large
quantities, or when the formations are poorly sorted (a very wide size range between minimum and
maximum grain size), the result is often invasion by the finest particles into the pores, reducing permeability in the critical near-wellbore area.

14-20

100

1.0

0.1

0.01

Figure 14.22: A plot of a -10+20 mesh sand. The vertical nature of the center section of the
plot shows very good sorting (Minimum
of fines and coarse particles).

, PEI, 1981)

Figure 14.23: Plots of uniformly sorted and poorly sorted sand

samples on an inverted X-axis semilog plot.

smallest sand is of concern. The 50% intersection of this plot results in an x-axis intersection of about
0.0045". The gravel should be sized four to eight times this 50% size (a modification of Saucier's37
work). This results in a gravel size of 0.018 and 0.036. With the help of the sieve size ranges in
Figure 14.25, the 0.018 and 0.036" sizes translate into 40 mesh and 20 mesh respectively. The gravel
pack would need -20+40 mesh gravel. Gravel is sold in common size ranges. If the calculations yield
a non standard gravel range, select the next smaller common range. Common U.S. mesh size ranges
for gravel are: -4+8, -6+10, -8+12, -1 2+16, -1 0+20,-12+20, -1 6+20, -20+40, and -40+60. The gravel
must meet specific roundness and strength criteria and have as little fines or large particles (out of
size range) as possible. The larger gravel size ranges are intended to control sand production in formations with large sand particles and the smaller gravels are necessary in the fine sand reservoirs.
The objective is to use a gravel that will stop sand production. For example, if the 50 percentile formation sand grain size is 0.006 in. (0.15 mm, about 98 mesh), 4 and 8 times this size is 0.024 and
0.048 in. which is equivalent to 29 mesh and 16 mesh respectively. Pick the next smaller range of
gravel from the common sizes. A -20+40 US. mesh gravel (0.017 to 0.033 in. or 0.42 to 0.84 mm)
should be selected. In a finer sand with a 50 percentile size of 0.0035 (170 mesh), 4 and 8 times
would give a minimum control gravel size of 0.014 in. (0.35 mm, 45 mesh) and 0.028 in. (0.71 mm,
25 mesh). In this case, a -40+60 U.S. mesh gravel would be useful.

14-19

100
90

5 60
a 50

5 40
U

30

i$

20

10

0
0.05

0.01
0.001
Sand grain diameter,

0.0001
in.

(Sawolo et al., 1983)

Figure 14.24: Sand size distribution for three samples.

In some cases, the smallest sized sand in a formation sequence is considerably smaller than the other
sands. If selecting the gravel based on this smallest sand would result in a gravel of more than one
common size range smaller than the gravel required to control the larger sand grain zones, consideration should be given to not perforating the interval with the smallest size sand. This would be especially true when the small sand size represents only a small portion of the pay thickness or where the
small sand size zone is in communication with a larger sand zone (the larger grain zone will effectively
drain the smaller grain zone).
Alternate Gravel Sizing Methods

Current gravel pack completion designs generally do a good job at preventing reservoir sand invasion
with reservoir sand that has a normal distribution pattern. When the formation sand is on either
extreme of the normal sorting of coarse and fine particles, the question arises as to whether a bare
screen could be used or is a frac pack needed to control fines movement. For reservoir sand distributions that are skewed towards finer sands and/or where large amounts of fines predominate, skins
from traditional gravel pack and screen completions can be high (may even increase with time) and
failures have occurred.
Although gravel packing is a well established completion mechanism, the amount of damage seen
after packing is often severe. The cause of this damage takes many forms, but increasingly, the size
and presence of formation fines is recognized as one of the major contributors to this damage. The
action of fines as a flow restriction in a gravel packed completion is known, but often only considered
as an existing condition immediately after the completion. Often however, skins increase over time
with production, with migrating fines blamed as a major culprit. There is data that the gravel pack
design may actually be a contributor to this damage in some cases.53
microns) grains (clay sized fines) from the forThe principle fines suspected are sub 325 mesh ( ~ 4 4
mation. The origin of the fines is still a point of research, but a few causes are understood about what
turns these fines loose in the formation. When these fines are present in the right size or in large
quantities, or when the formations are poorly sorted (a very wide size range between minimum and
maximum grain size), the result is often invasion by the finest particles into the pores, reducing permeability in the critical near-wellbore area.

14-20

U.S.
Mesh
4
5

D (mm)

Fall Rate
in Water
(Wmin.)

D (in.)

4./6

0.1 8 /

4
3.36

0.157

0.132

Figure 14:25: Sizes of US Mesh Sieve Series

Background from published literature in this area is extensive, but most of the data from field operations has focused on near well damage caused by screen damage from drilling and completion fluids,
perforation flow dynamics, gel damage from packing or fluid loss control fluids or out-of-specification
gravel. Related work to this study appear to be limited to a few authors that recognize some component of the contribution to flow restriction of fines along the gravel pack interface or the ~ c r e e n . ~ ~ - ~ ~
Current Gravel Pack Design Methods and Problem Identification

Saucier and others solidified gravel pack selection criteria with several studies in the 1960sand 70s
The
that led to the often applied gravel sizing criteria based on 6 times the 50% particle
resultant plot, Figure 14.24, is a typical design aid used in most current gravel sizing studies.63

14-21

The use of this criteria has proven effective for stopping sand in most formations; however, there have
been a number of papers in the 1990s investigating productivity impairment to sand control completions in general and gravel packed completions in p a r t i c ~ l a r . In
~ ~looking
- ~ ~ at these papers, the average skin damage values to gravel packed completions are ranging from a low of around +10 to over
+50 even on completions that do not report obvious completions based problems. Recently published
data has shown that the average skin calculated for frac-packed completions ranges from a skin of -2
to 5.67-72
An evaluation of gravel pack failures identified several cases that support a change in the way gravel
and screens are sized. The data is interesting, and becoming more conclusive, that the size, type and
quantity of fine particles (sub 325 mesh = 0.001 7 in. = 44 microns) may play a significant role in
plugging both gravel packs and screens. The sub 325 mesh was selected, because the average pore
size of the 40/60 mesh gravel (smallest common gravel pack gravel) is about 45 microns. This size
and smaller particles can enter the pores and can bridge inside the pack. Additionally, large masses of
particles in this size range can plug the formation/gravel pack interface, causing significant damage
skins. The created pressure drop at the interface is also a catalyst for scale formation. This has been
documented on small-grained formations.
In practical engineering investigations of screen failures in several parts of the world (both vertical and
horizontal wells), unpublished accounts of the completion behavior immediately before the screen
failed showed several cases where the pressure inside the screen fell sharply while the reservoir pressure remained the same (or built up?). One explanation for this behavior is that the screens, and in
some cases the gravel packs, were plugging with fines, becoming, in effect, blank pipe sections; thus
the failures may have been more related to hydraulic collapses than mechanical crush events. This
same occurrence may take place in vertical wells.
Mobility of Fines.

One key consideration needing to be considered is the mobility of fine particles. When fine particles
are present, the quantity of the fines available to move and form a seal is critical. The sub 325 mesh
value may be misleading, especially if the fines are bound in aggregates and are not free on an individual basis. Careful geological analysis and testing should be undertaken to make this important
determination. Certainly, if the formation fails due to changes to the in-situ forces keeping a weak formation consolidated, individual fines would be available to plug flow paths and reduce flow capacity.
For a typical formation, fines greater than 5% or so would provide a sufficient quantity to bridge and
seal against the medium and coarse particles at the interface of the gravel pack.
Fines can be loosened by other mechanisms short of formation failure and these factors need to be
considered as well. Particle movement in the formation can be triggered by physical force (drag forces
on the particle from flowing fluids), by chemical repulslon/attraction, by breaking the binding force to
the formation host grain and by a chemical upset where the particles are held in suspension.
Common causes of particle movement are:
1. High shear force on the solids by flowing liquids, especially at high flow rates and with high vis-

cosity fluids.
2. Acids - pH shift is a chemical upset, as is the 70,000+ppm equivalent chloride ion strength often flocculates polymers, silica and some dispersed particulates such as asphaltenes. Very
minor effect on most sands however.

3. Mutual solvents22 -the solvents can disperse fines by removing the liquid surrounding the grain
that may be binding the fines to the host grain. Limited by contact.

4. Change in salinity of fluids invading formation most likely form of damage mechanism from
Smectites and dispersible clays. Often liberates particles in the 1 to 5 micron size.

14-22

5. Solvents that reduce viscosity of a trapped liquid layer that may be holding fines.
6. And, by far, the most likely problem, is the disaggregation of the matrix of the formation by
change in water saturation or overburden increase.

There are few practical methods of preventing fines from flowing in a producing formation where fines
are naturally or easily liberated: the act of fluids production can be a strong fines mover. Only by bridging the fines, keeping the drawdown low (limiting production), or spreading the drawdown out
(improved reservoir contact by fracturing, open hole gravel packs, high rate water packing, horizontal
wells, etc.), can the fines be stopped. Bridging the fines is usually very flow restrictive. Where fines
only flow for short periods early in the life of the well, rate limiting may be effective. But, where fines
are part of the producing challenge over the life of the well, handling by preventing their flow or passing them through the completion appears to be the best option.

Sand Sorting Considerations

The sorting ratios discussed in previous paragraphs can be obtained from a simple sieve analysis.
The advantage of the sieve analysis is that it can run easily on almost any sample regardless of the
condition. These ratios and other data do not say anything about the potential for fines migration. That
very important piece of information is still to be addressed by a sand strength model. The D designations in the table refer to the sieve size distributions (cumulative%). The D40/D90 ratio, for example, is
the sieve opening (in inches, mm or microns) above which 40% of the sand is retained, divided by the
sieve opening (same measurement) above which 90% of the sand is retained. An example from a
moderate size, well sorted formation yields a D40 of 0.0098 in. (60 mesh), divided by a D90 of
0.0035 in. (170 mesh) to give a D40/D90 of 2.8. A more poorly sorted example would be a D40 of
0.017 in. (40 mesh) and a D90 of 0.001 7 in. (325 mesh), which yields a D40/D90 of 10.
Two formations may have similar sortings but very different sizing. A formation with a D40/D90 of
0.02 in./0.0049 in. = 5, has approximately the same sorting as a formation with a D40/D90 of
0.0049 in./0.001 in. = 5, but the D50% of the first formation is about 0.017 in. (40 mesh) and the D50%
of the second formation is about 0.0041 in. (140 mesh). At first, the difference in sizing in these two
formations with essentially the same sorting may seem to invalidate the ratio sorting parameter, but
the real considerations that we are trying to describe are the ability of the formation to form blockages.
The sorting is a measurement of the ratio of coarser to finer particles. The larger the ratio, the larger
the range between the coarse and fine particles and the more likely the formation sand grains are to
form bridges and lower the permeability. The smaller the ratio, the more permeability is preserved. For
example, gravel is sized in tight ranges, like 12/20 mesh, with a D40/D90 of 0.056 in./0.039 = 1.4;
20/40 mesh, where the D40/D90 ratio is about 0.028/0.019 = 1.5; or 40/60 mesh, with a D40/D90 of
0.014/0.00.011 = 1.3. The sizing and the permeability of these gravels vary widely, but permeability is
preserved with the consistent pore sizes where plugging fines are absent (hence the low sorting
ratios). Addition of even small amounts of fines to the gravel (see Figure 14.20) can sharply lower
permeability.
Formations with low sorting values should be completed in a different manner from formations with
high sorting values, where fines will plug off on screens or secondary (larger formation sand grains)
matrixes over the screens. For D40/D90 sorting values of 1 to 3, consider bare screen completions,
particularly if the permeability of the formation sand is high enough (1 to 2 Darcies or higher) to prevent creation of significant pressure drops through sand packed perforations.
The actual level of the sorting value, where problems begin to show, is not exactly known, but rough
ranges are beginning to emerge, along with the knowledge that the screen filtration level itself is
important in the selection of a maximum level of the ratio. It is important to note that the sorting minimum or maximum level may also change with the type of sorting definition. The D40/D90 has been
found to be useful for determining whether bare screen completions (with conventional screens, prepacked screens, or woven mesh screens) will work. For example, field data suggests that the level of
the D40/D90 for an 80 micron weave screen is a maximum of 6. The 200 micron version of the same
type of weave screen has a maximum D40/D90 of 8.73 The coarser screens can pass more of the par-

14-23

ticles without plugging, hence the higher limit on the ratio for candidates. Levels of D40/D90 of 5 (from
empirical data) and above are warning signs of fines size that could plug any type of bare screen completion.
Another sorting criteria, that of D1O/D95 was selected based on the ability to see distinct variation
between the size and sorting ranges of formation sands. From the section on bridging agent performance, the ugly correlation between a wide particle size range and the potential to form a
permeability-limiting bridge is evident. The coarse end of the formation sand size spectrum, the D1O, is important, although less so than the fines.
The biggest impact on productivity of a gravel pack is a three way contrast between the permeabilities
of: the gravel, the formation and the interface layer between the formation and the gravel.53 From the
beds-in-series relationship, the major impact is preserving the permeability of the otherwise thin interface layer. The factor that can most dominate on this layer is the presence of fines that can fill the
pores of the larger grains and reduce permeability sharply. The D1O/D95 ratio increases sharply with a
finer size of sand at the D95 position. For this reason, it is a good indicator of potential problems with
ultra wide range of particle size, one that can predict problems with a particle size range that is too
wide. For the D1 O/D95 ratio, levels above 10 are considered high.
Benefits of Larger Gravel
The accepted basis for gravel sizing in gravel packing design focuses in on preventing invasion into
the matrix created by the gravel. In the 1970s, Chevron showed that too large a gravel, specifically
those designs based on a bridging concept, would be invaded by formation sand and the gravel permeability would be sharply lowered.74 The problem was created by filling of the pore spaces between
the gravel with fines from the formation. Since that work, several authors have proposed that certain
formations could use larger gravels and proved the point by gravel packing with 7x through 9x sized
gravels. The formations that respond well to this approach are clearly in the minority. A quick study of
their character shows that they are the larger grained, more well sorted sands, typically with little or no
fines .75976
When the sorting methods presented here indicate a well sorted formation that requires gravel packing, larger, rounder, gravel, with a tighter size range may be of value in improving flow capacity
through lowering pressure drop and improving conductivity. Before taking on the issue of gravel sizing
in the special (well sorted) formations, it may be of use to consider ways of improving both interface
control and gravel permeability. The permeability of the gravel is controlled by the size of the pores
that a stressed gravel pack presents to the formation and maintains between the formation and the
screen. Long known methods of improving gravel permeability are:
1. Using a rounder gravel (presents a more constant pore size and higher permeability)

2. Using a gravel that contains less initial out-of-range particles,

3. Using a gravel that produces less fines during handling and placement (stronger)
4. Using a gravel with a narrower size range.

The rounder gravel offers sharply higher permeability and less fines created in the gravel handling and
placement steps. The synthetic gravels offer much rounder profiles and greater strengths for only a
small increase in cost over regular gravels.
Resieving gravel, especially synthetic gravels, is an amazingly cheap method of obtaining gravel with
more consistent pore sizes; an automatic way of achieving more permeability and less invasion. There
is nothing magic about the presently available gravel sizes of -20+40 mesh, -30+50 mesh, etc. These
mesh sizes were selected, at least in part, because the naturally occurring gravels could be screened
into commercially saleable quantities in these ranges and the ranges offered what was considered

14-24

good permeability. Selecting new ranges of say; -20+25 mesh or -30+35 mesh may seem unusual, but
may offer tremendous advantages in either the case of abundant fines or low fines content. Cost is
minimal in comparison to benefits, especially in synthetic gravels.
There are really two types of formations that may benefit from gravel sizes larger than the standard
6x: those without significant fines and those with too many fines.

Sorting Criteria The sorting criteria suggest that the following applications data should work (with
other factors as noted).53 When all values are under the thresholds, the risk of damage is low where
the formation sand is well described by the examined samples. These ratio and comparison thresholds are:
1. (D1O/D95c10, D40/D90<3, sub 325 meshe%) the lowest sorting values with low fines content
may be bare screen completion candidates. (Need >1 Darcy formation permeability for cased
and perforated completion, with possible use of prepacked screens).
2. (D1O/D95<10, D40/D90c5, sub 325 meshc5Y0) low to medium sorting ranges, or with fines just
out of range may best be served by bare screen completions with new technology, woven mesh
screens. (Need >1 Darcy formation permeability for cased and perforated completion).
3. (DlO/D95<20, D40/D90<5, sub 325 meshc5%) medium ratio ranges may be served by larger
gravel (7x or 8x 5OYo), placed in high rate water pack, particularly if the formation sand size is
consistent over the zone (no laminations and minimum streaks).
4. (DlO/D95QO, D40/D90<5, sub 325 meshcl 0%) medium ratio ranges with too many fines may
use a combination of larger gravel and a fines-passing screen.

5. (DlO/D95>20, D40/D90>5, sub 325 mesh>l 0%) the highest ratios, particularly those coupled
with large amounts of fines signal a critical need for enlarging the wellbore (move the
gravel/formation sand interface away from the wellbore), through fracturing, horizontal or multilateral well technology underreaming, or large volume prepacking to minimize severe permeability damage at the gravelhand interface due to flow.
The next component of the gravel pack is the screen. The purpose of the screen is to stop the gravel.
Screens are sized by the slot size between the wraps. This opening must be small enough to stop the
smallest particle in the gravel. The screens are wrapped and welded wire around a slotted liner. The
wire has a characteristic keystone design, Figure 14.26 is designed to completely pass any particle
small enough to penetrate through the entry point. The slot opening is measured in thousandths of an
inch or gauge units. A 0.008 in. opening (0.2 mm) is an 8 gauge and a 0.01 6 in. opening (0.4 mm) is a
16 gauge. The necessary screen opening should be at least two or three thousandths of an inch
smaller than the minimum gravel size. Some authors recommend a screen opening of one-half of the
size of the smaller range of gravel size. Examples of successfully used screen/gravel combinations
are an 6 to 8 gauge screen for (6 mesh suggested for most jobs) -40+60 mesh gravel (0.0098 in.,
0.25 mm smallest size) and a 20 gauge screen for -12+20 mesh gravel (0.017 in., 0.42 mm smallest
size).
Larger body diameter screens offer more contact area with the gravel and are less susceptible to plugging by debris, simply because they have more slot area. The newest screens on the market are
expandable screens that deform against the bore hole wall. The larger screen sizes will accept larger
pumps or tools. Sometimes smaller diameter screens are used because gravel can shift in a larger
annulus. Small annulus spaces are more stable when packed. For conventional screens and where
gravel will be used, a minimum clearance of 1 in. in a cased hole and 2 in. in an open hole should be
designed into the completion. This clearance not only allows for more even packing, it also allows the
screen to be washed over and retrieved when the well has to be serviced. Since the success of the
gravel pack depends upon a consistent, thick layer of gravel between the screen and the formation,
the use of centralizers every 15 to 20 ft is absolutely necessary. The screen should extend at least 5 ft

14-25

Figure 14.26: The keystone design of a wrapped screen.

This sketch shows a screen opening that is
designed to arch the gravel. Such a design is
usually poor because it allows sand or gravel
to be produced when the arch is broken.

above and below the perforated interval. Blank pipe (non-screen) in the gravel packed interval should
be minimized unless special steps are taken to increase packing of void areas. A number of good
papers deal with specific applications techniques.4049
The screens which are most commonly used for sand control operations in coiled tubing are the smaller
diameter units which may be weave type (Figures 14.27 and 14.28). These small screens are very useful
for throughtubing gravel packs or sand control repair operations although problems arise with the very
small inflow area. The advantages of these systems are their low cost and ability to place the screen without requiring a rig.

Figure 14.27: Pall Stratopack.

Carrier Fluids

There are several types of fluids available for placement of the gravel around the screen. The requirements of a fluid are that it carry the gravel, be nondamaging to the formation, and be able to leakoff to
the formation or the screen and leave the gravel as a tightly compacted mass at the point of fluid exit.
There should be an absolute minimum of polymer residue in the gravel after packing and backflow.
Water, gelled water, crosslinked gelled water, foam, and gelled oil have all be used for gravel transport. There are two principle design types - conventional gravel packing (with ungelled water) and
slurry pack techniques with gelled fluids and high gravel concentrations. Ungelled water may carry

14-26

Figure 14.28: (pail)

Figure 14.29:

about 1 Ib of gravel per gallon while gelled or crosslinked gelled water may carry as much as 15 Ib of
gravel per gallon of gelled fluid.
There is no set gravel volume for a well. Most operators try to put as much gravel as possible through
the perfs without mixing the gravel with the formation sand. Ideal completions would be large cavities
or fractures beyond the perfs, filled with clean gravel. By increasing the size of the interface between
the gravel and the formation sand, pressure drops have much less effect on production at any given
rate. The gravel volume should include the prepack (outside the Perforations and the perforation tunnels) and the annular volume (between screen and formation in an open hole completion or the inside
of casing in a cased hole) of the interval from the sump packer set at the base of the zone to a point
5 ft above the top perforations of the zone, plus about 10% excess. All gravel to be squeezed out of
the perfs or into the formation must be added to the total. When the results of the caliper log are questionable on open hole completions, additional gravel should be readily available. The most successful
completions often use 100 or more pounds of gravel per foot, with most of this total as prepack (outside the perfs).

14-27

Figure 14.30:

The real key to the success of a gravel pack operation, after the proper equipment has been selected,
is the care and technique of placement. Only a few of the techniques will be covered here and none in
detail. Penberthy and Shaughnessy are recommended for further reading and as a source for treatment specifics.

Equipment
The following equipment is typical of that used in gravel packing.
1. The Sump Packer is run and set below the perfs and serves as a base for the gravel pack. It may
be either a seal bore packer in permanent or retrievable service. The packer creates a debris
sump below the completion. (May also allow communication into screen if area below packer is
not adequately sealed.)

2. A Snap Latch Assembly is an attachment to the sump packer verifying location of the work
string. A collet and a shoulder help identify that the gravel packing assembly has landed successfully. Forcing the collet through the seal bore causes a change in string weight: the weight
change disappears when the collet is through the bore and reappears when the shoulder
engages the top of the packer.
3. The lower tell-tale screen and an inner bore seal sub, in conjunction with the washpipe, create a
restrictive flow path for the gravel slurry that helps assure that the bottom of the screen is
packed first and that the pack is tight. The washpipe extends as deep as possible into the base
of the 6 ft to 15 ft long telltale screen, leaving a small portion of the screen at the bottom to allow
fluids to return, through the screen, to the surface. Lower telltale screens are rarely run.

14-28

4. The washpipe is a smooth tube that is run with the gravel pack assembly and is later withdrawn

at the end of the packing operation. The diameter of the washpipe must be at least 80% of the
inside flowing diameter of the screen body. Although it may be used with the seals in the seal
sub to form a positive barrier to flow, it usually creates a hydraulic seal (based on frictional
forces without the seal sub).
5. The screen may be one of several types of devices designed to stop the smallest gravel in the
pack. The screen should be centralized at least every joint and needs 1 in. to 3 in. radial clearance between screen OD and hole or casing ID. Excessive screen clearances can result in volumetric packing problems. Clearances e 1 in. often result in bridging of gravel.
6. Non-screen or blank pipe - Effective gravel packing requires fluid leakoff to create a tight sand

pack. Blank sections do not typically pack well with conventional screens and depend on settling
(in vertical wells). Minimize blank pipe sections or use alternate path methods.52Higher slurry
concentrations help with gravel fill in blank sections but do not fully pack. Blank pipe above
screen holds some gravel reserve at end of job.

7. Shear-Out Safety Joint - At the top of the screen, between the screen and the tubing below the
packer, a shear released safety joint is usually run to insure that the packer and tubing can be
recovered in the event that the well must be pulled. Screens are usually held tightly by the gravel
and must be washed over.
8. Crossover Tool -The crossover tool, as part of the gravel pack assembly, allows the gravel slurry

from the surface to flow down the tubing and the crossover to the casingkcreen annulus to pack
the well or enter the formation in a fracture treatment. The gravel pack tool can be shifted into
different positions, allowing gravel to be placed or reversed out at the end of the job. The size
and shape of the crossover port is critical to prevention of erosion damage to the casing and
breakage of the gravel.
9. Gravel Pack Packer - The packer forms the upper limit of the annular wellbore and isolates producing pressures from the upper part of the casing. A number of packer choices are available.

10. Workstring Sizing Workstring sizing is important to deliver slurry at a constant gravel concentration. If the liquid flow down the string is too slow, the solids can settle faster than the flow

resulting in roping or slugs of gravel. A displacement velocity of 500 fpm is recommended.

Rate (bpm) - 0.485 (workstring I.D.)2
Workstring OD
2-318 in.
2-718 in.
3.5 in.
4 in.
4-112 in.

Minimum Rate
(bpm)
2
3
4.5
6

Packing Methods

There are two principle methods of gravel packing: water packing and slurry packing. Water packing
uses water or brine (usually 2% KCI) to carry gravel at 0.5 to 1 Ib/gal. Advantages are low damage,
high leakoff and low cost. Disadvantages are increased time and higher volumes of fluid used.
Slurry packing uses many of the same tools and techniques as conventional or water gravel packing
but uses gelled water for the carrying fluid.

14-29

Advantages of the slurry system are:

1. a much faster treatment using up to 15 Ib gravel per gallon of carrier fluid instead of the 1 to 2 Ib

used with water.

2. less total liquid lost to the formation.

Disadvantages include:
1. More surface equipment required.
2. More technology (and training) required for application.

3. Formation damage from gelled fluids can be severe.

Fluid Loss Control

Sand producing formations are characterized by high permeability and many sand control completions
are severely and often permanently damaged by efforts to control fluid loss.
Controlling fluid loss is necessary to keep the well full of fluid during a completion or workover. Some
fluid loss is needed for gravel packing. If the fluid loss is too low, the wellbore cannot be effectively
packed with gravel. If the losses are too high, well control is threatened. Losses in the range of 2 to
10 bbl/hr are typical and the rate of loss before a job is frequently proportional to the productivity of
the well after the completion.
The methods of controlling fluid loss are discussed in the following paragraphs.
1. Polymer pills are the most common fluid loss control method, but are also the most damaging.
Pills of 80 to over 100 lb/bbl are common. A study of well productivity after use of these pills
found them to be one of the worst damage events in the completion process.30
2. Graded size salt pills (free salt crystals suspended in a saturated brine) that bridge inside the
screen usually cause less damage than polymer pills, but are less stable (may have to be reapplied).
3. Fluid loss requires permeability and a pressure differential toward the formation. By minimizing
the pressure differential, the rate of loss can be decreased. The problem is that many formations
are near balanced or even overbalanced with water. For these formations, gravel packing with oil
(also used for extreme water sensitivity) or foam can be done. Both these fluids require precautions, and experience on the rig is critical.
4. In a few cases where pressures are known and free gas is not produced, the fluid level in the
wells could be allowed to drop, to equilibrium, so long as fluid level was monitored by sonic or

other device.
5. Mechanical controls such as flappers, check valves and other devices are usually only used
after the pack is placed, or in very specialized designs. Use of these devices is usually a very
good protection barrier to protect the pack from damage.
Alternate Path Gravel Packing

One problem experienced when placing gravel over a zone is the effect of a very high permeability in
one part of the interval. Gravel placement requires fluid leakoff. But, if the leakoff is not relatively consistent, the losses in a very high permeability zone may often cause a bridge of gravel to form and the

14-30

wellbore can become blocked. These bridges begin to be a problem where the permeability variance
between minimum and maximum per zones is over one order of magnitude, and become a severe
problem where the permeability variation approaches or exceeds two orders of magnitude.
When bridges do form, the use of alternate path technology is needed. This technology is incorporated into a screen design that uses tubes along the outside of the screen or build into the screen
body. The tubes allow gravel flow to divert around bridges, packing zones that would otherwise be
impossible to pack. Small holes in the tubes every few meters, allow the slurry to vent from the tubes
into the annulus below the bridge. The friction pressure of the gravel slurry in the tubes is high, insuring that the slurry will depart the tube at the earliest opportunity and pack the annulus.
Pressure Drops Across Gravel Packs

Pressure drop or loss across a gravel packed completion is caused by completion obstructions at the
face of the formation, through perforations and gravel, and the screen. The loss may be either
mechanical and/or nondarcy flow dominated.
For mechanical impedance only, based on a whole completion section, the loss is:
AP

= q~ln(rdrS)/27ckh

where:
AP
p
q
rc

= pressure drop

rs

= inner radius

k
h

= permeability

= viscosity
= fluid flow
= outer radius

= height

The dominant control on pressure drop is the permeability, which, although not known as a total value
can be estimated for each element of the completion. Maximizing flow means optimizing permeability
at every point in the completion. From several studies on pressure drop in gravel packed completions,
the following ideas have been collected:
1. Pressure drop is rather insensitive to annular clearance between the casing and the screen (as
long as the gravel is not damaged).51

2. Pressure drop is mostly independent of nearby perforations, indicating perforation phase angle
is not a critical variable in most completion^.^^

3. The greatest perforating influence is the shot density and perforation diameter.51
4. Damage to the formation permeability can cause severe

restriction^.^^

The severity of the effect

5. Damage to the gravel permeability has an influence on prod~ctivity.~
depends upon the flow rate.

6. The pressure drop of an undamaged screen is extremely low. But, since the open area of most
screen is low (1 to 3% for conventional screens and 20% to 30% for weave screens), plugging by
mobile fines is a distinct possibility.

14-3 1

Example

The average permeability and the effect of damage on production can be estimated. In this example, a
1 darcy formation with a drainage radius of 1,320 ft has a 6 in. wellbore with the first 0.1 in. of the formation damaged to a permeability of 10 md (99%). The average perm (eq 11.11) is:

kavg

0.73 darcy

The productivity of the zone with the damage layer would be (eq 11.1 2):

Using the preceding eql uations to make a sensitivity plot, Figure , the effect of damage and thickness
of damage are seen. The values of damage have to be extreme to cause significant effects on the productivity. The 99% damage (1% of initial perm) that is 0.1 in. thick, produces a well with 73% of
undamaged productivity (skin = +2.6). The 99.9% damage that is 0.1 in. thick, produces a well with
21% of undamaged productivity (skin = +26).

Effect of Damage Layer Thickness

0

2>
3

0.1

0.01

'b

0, 0.001

0.01

0.01" thick
0.05" thick
0.1" thick
I"thick

0. I

10

Damaged Perm, %of initial

Figure 14.31:

Pack and Frac Technology

Sand control technology can be combined with fracturing in many instances. Even an unconsolidated
formation can be fractured, and production improvements have been documented on many unconsolidated wells in the Gulf of Mexico with permeabilities from 50 to 500 md.
The technology is relatively simple:

14-32

1. A short, highly conductive fracture treatment is designed with tip screenout and very high proppant loading. The gravel pack screen is usually in the wellbore at the time of the fracture treatment.
2. After the fracture job (and before backflow), the wellbore is gravel packed.

Fracture lengths are short, usually on the order of 15 to 100 ft. The wellbores must be gravel packed
in most cases to make sure that all the perforations are covered and none produce sand. Fracturing
the formations moves the maximum drawdown out into the formation and may reduce the tendency for
sand moveout. A variety of fluids are in use as fracturing fluids; the only criteria are: ability to quickly
control leakoff in the high perm sands and ability to carry the high proppant loadings. In most cases,
the pad fluid makes the initial fracture and seals the walls of the fracture. The proppant carrying slurry
is then forced into the fracture and maximum leakoff occurs as the fracture is extended, leading to a
tip screenout and maximum packing of proppant.
Reservoir Lamination and Well Deviation

Multilayer pays including those with laminations, shale streaks, or low vertical permeability all must be considered within the context of small individual reservoirs. To ideally drain these reservoirs requires adequate
wellbore contact with each of these small unit reservoirs. The best way to establish this type of contact is
through a fracture treatment extending at least a few feet away from the wellbore or with a multi-lateral
well. The number of feet of extension or the length of the lateral is directly related to the amount of permeability and the viscosity of the flowing fluids. For fracture methods, fracture designs are typically tip screenout (TSO), although water frac designs and other fracturing design work is usually considered. The difference in their use is the permeability level of the formation and the necessary flow capacity of the fracture.
One of the biggest problems in frac packing high-rate wells is the near-wellbore connection, including fracture contact with the wellbore and perforations. The limitations appear to be turbulence in the gravel
packed perforations which could be decreased by increasing the gravel size or the number of perforating
or aligning the perfs with fracture direction.
Other Unstable Formations

Besides sands, some chalks, shales, coals, siltstones, rubble zones and other formations will produce
fines. The reasons for particle flow depend on the type of the formation, although the principle cause
is mechanical failure. Like the sandstones that undergo shear failure, some shales, chalks and coals
will also produce solids in response to an increasing net overburden stress. The production of the pore
fluids near the wellbore combined with the slow replacement of these fluids through the matrix, creates a pressure imbalance that is often sufficient to cause brittle failure of the formation at the
exposed face of the wellbore. The failure may be accelerated by drying of the formation, lubrication by
liquids, or salinity shock in a water sensitive formation. Shear is increased by high drawdowns
imposed when permeability is lowered by damage, compression or relative permeability. Spalling and
some other failures can be controlled by limiting drawdown or by using gravel pack technology.
The steps involved in gravel packing will vary for the type of treatment being done. The basic steps
which are common to all graveI.packing operations are:
1. The gravel is selected based on stopping the formation sand.
2. A sump packer or other device is run into the hole to a point where the base of the screen
assembly will be set.
3. The centralized screen gravel pack packer and tubing is then run into the hole and located on
the sump packer.

14-33

4. The gravel pack packer is set, the bypass from the tubing to the hole screen annulus is opened,
and a gravel slurry in either water or a gelled fluid is injected down the tubing and through the
crossover into the annular area.
5. The fluid carries the gravel into the annular area. The fluid deposits the gravel as it leaks off into
the formation and/,or is returned to the surface by leaking through the screen. Fluids that leak
through the screen are taken up the washpipe to the crossover where they are routed into the
annular area above the packer and returned to the surface. Most fluids used in this manner are
not recirculated.
6. As the gravel fill increases in the annular area, the screen and perforations are covered. The
drag created by the fluid flowing through the pack to the perforations and/or the screen creates a
tight pack of gravel in the annular area.

7. After the annular area is filled to the top of the perforations or the openhole interval, the pressure
at the surfaces rises rapidly because the fluid has to flow through the gravel to get to a point of
leakoff. Gravel injection at the surface is stopped, and the gravel in the annular area between the
screen and the packer settles by gravity onto the pack above the perforations or openhole section.

8. The gravel pack packer is shifted and the well is reverse-circulated by pumping down the annulus (above the packer) and up the tubing to remove the sand-laden slurry that is in tubing.
9. In some designs the gravel pack packer can then be shifted to allow pressuring of the annular
area to attempt to squeeze more gravel into the formation or to make the pack tighter.
The use of a washpipe inside the screen during gravel packing is an attempt to make the fluid flow
through the pack to the bottom of the screen before it returns from the well. This increases the drag
through the pack and accounts for a tighter gravel pack. The size of the washpipe is usually 80% of
the ID of the screen.
There are very few differences between packing openhole completions and packing cased hole completions. In either case, the formation is often washed before gravel packing to increase the size of the
cavities in the formation or the formations may be fractured with a sand-carrying fluid before the
screen is run into the well. Washing of the perforations or the openhole will create larger voids but is
only effective if the voids remain open and can be filled with gravel without mixing with the formation
sand. Fractured completions that will be gravel packed increase the effective wellbore radius by putting a short, high permeability fracture into the formation.

References Gravel Pack

1. Penberthy, W. L., Jr., Shaughnessy, C. M.: Sand Control, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Rich-

ardson, Texas, 1992.

2. Sparlin, D., Hagen, R.: Sand Control, International Completion Consultants (Houston), 1986.

3. Tippie, D. B.,VanPoolen, H. K., Kohlhaas, C. A.: Variation of Skin Damage with Flow Rate
Associated with Sand Flow or Stability in Unconsolidated-Sand Reservoir, SPE Paper 4886,
44th California Regional Meeting, April 4-5, 1974, San Francisco.
4. Morita, N. Whitfill, D. L., Massie, I., Knudsen, T. W.,: Realistic Sand-Production Prediction:
Numerical Approach, SPE Prod. Eng., (Feb. 1989), pp. 15-24.
5. Morita, N. Whitfill, D. L., Fedde, 0. P., Lovik, T. H.: Parametric Study of Sand Production Prediction: Analytical Approach, SPE Prod. Eng., (Feb. 1989), pp. 25-33.

14-34

6. Stein, N.: Mechanical Properties of Friable Sands From Conventional Log Data,
1976), pp. 757-763.

JPT,(July

7. Stein, N.: Calculate Drawdown that Will Cause Sand Production, World Oil, (April 1988), pp.
48-49.
8. Stein, N.: Designing Gravel Packs For Changing Well Conditions, World Oil (Feb. 1, 1983, pp.
41-47.
9. Stein, N.: Determine Properties of Friable Formation Sands, World Oil, March 1988, pp. 33,34,
37.

10. Stein, N.: Mud Weight Correction Gives Better Sand Strength Estimates, World Oil, (March
1989), pp. 61-63.
11. Hall, C. D., Harrisberger, W. H.: Stability of Sand Arches: A Key to Sand Control, JPT, July
1970, pp. 821-829.
12. Bratli, R. K.: Stability and Failure of Sand Arches, SPEJ, April 1981, pp. 236-248.
13. Risnes, R., Bratli, R. K., Horsrud, P.: Sand Stresses Around a Wellbore, SPE 9650, Bahrain,
March 9-12, 1981.
14. Veeken, C. A. M., Davies, D. R., Kenter, C. J., Kooijman, A. P.: Sand Production Prediction
Review: Developing and Integrated Approach, SPE 22792, Dallas, Oct. 3-9, 1991.
15. Chow, C.: New Method to Assess Sand Production Risk: Laboratory Development and Field
Test Results, SPE 28284, Unpublished.
16. Morita, N., Whitfill, D. L., Massie, I.: Realistic Sand-Production Prediction: Numerical
Approach, SPE Prod. Eng., Feb. 1989, pp. 15-24.
17. Santarelli, F. J., Ouadfel, H., Zundel, J. P.: Optimizing the Completion Procedure to Minimize
Sand Production Risk, SPE 22797, Dallas, Oct. 6-9, 1991.
18. Stein, N., Hilchie, D. W.: Estimating the Maximum Production Rate Possible from Friable Sandstones Without Using Sand Control, JPT, June 1972, pp. 1157-1160.
19. Chalambor, A., Hayatdavoudi, A., Alcocer, C. F., Koliba, R. J.: Predicting Sand Production in
U.S. Gulf Coast Gas Wells Producing Free Water,
20. Weingarten, J. S., Perkins, T. K.: Prediction of Sand Production in Gas Wells: Methods and Gulf
of Mexico Case Studies, SPE 24747.
21. Morita, N. McLeod, H. 0.: Oriented Perforations to Prevent Casing Collapse for Highly Inclined
Wells, SPE 28556, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 24-2-6, 1994.
22. Schlumberger Log Interpretation Principles/Applications, 1987, p. 193.
23. Domenico, S. N.: Elastic Properties of Unconsolidated Porous Sand Reservoirs, 46th Annual
International SEG Mtg., Oct. 27, 1976, Houston.
24. Onyia, E. C.: Relationships Between Formation Strength, Drilling Strength, and Electric Log
Properties, SPE 18166, Annual Tech. Conf., Houston, Oct. 2-5, 1988.

14-35

25. Sage, B. J., Lacey, W.N.: Effectiveness of Gravel Screens, Trans, AIME, 1942.
26. Flanigan, M. J.: Smaller Gravel and Coated Screens Enhance 50-Year Old Field, J. Pet. Tech.
(May 1980), pp. 757-763.

27. Muecke, T. W.: Sand Consolidation: A Study of Plastic Failure Mechanisms, SPE 4354, Oilfield
Chemistry Symposium, Denver, May 24-25, 1973.
28. Dees, J. M.: Sand Control in Wells with Gas Generator and Resin, SPE 24841, presented at
the 67th Annual SPE Mtg., Washington D.C., Oct. 4-7, 1992.
29. Sparlin, D. D.: Sand and Gravel - A Study of Their Permeabilities, SPE Paper 4772, Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, Feb. 7-8, 1974.
30. Zwolle, S., Davies, D. R.: Gravel Packing Sand Quality - A Quantitative Study, J. Pet. Tech.
(June 1983), pp. 1042-1050.
31. Boulet, D. P.: Gravel for Sand Control: A Study of Quality Control, J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1979), pp.
164-168.
32. Mattx, C. C., McKinley, R. M., Clothier, A. T.: Core Analysis of Unconsolidated and Friable
Sands, J.P.T., (Dec. 1975), pp. 1423-1432.
33. Maly, G. P., Krueger, R. F.: Improper Formation Sampling Leads to Improper Gravel Size Selection, J.P.T., (Dec., 1971), pp. 1403-1408.
34. Ledlow, L. B. and C. W. Sauer: Recent Design, Placement and Evaluation Techniques Lead to
Improved Gravel Pack Performance, SPE paper 14162 presented at the 60th Annual Technical
Conference, Las Vegas, September 22-25, 1985.
35. Shryock, S.G., Dunlap, R. G., Millhone, R. S.: Millhone, R. S.: Preliminary Results from FullScale Gravel Packing Studies, J. Pet. Tech. (June 1979), pp. 669-675.
36. Krumbein, W.C., Sloss, L. L.: Stratigraphy and Sedimentation, Freeman and Co., (1953).
37. Saucier, R. J.: Considerations in Gravel Pack Design, J.P.T., Feb. 1974, pp. 205-212.
38. Shryock, S.G.: Gravel-Packing Studies in a Full-Scale Deviated Model Wellbore, J. Pet. Tech.
(March 1983), pp. 603-609.
39. Shryock, S.G., Milhone, R. S.: Gravel-Packing Studies in a Full-scale, Vertical Model Wellbore
- Progress Report, J. Pet. Tech. (July 1980), pp. 1137-1143.
40. Penberthy, W. L.: Gravel Placement Through Perforations and Perforation Cleaning for Gravel
Packing, J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1988), pp. 229-236.
41. Patton, L. Douglas and William A. Abbott: Well Completions and Workovers, Petroleum Engineer International, November 1981, pp. 156-176.
42. Weissenburger, K. W., Morita, N., Martin, A. J., Whitfill, D. L.: The Engineering Approach to
Sand Production Prediction, SPE 16892, 62nd Annual Tech. Conf., Dallas, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
43. Trahan, G. J., Spies, R. J.: A Technique for Making High-Rate Completions in Partially Pressure-Deplated Unconsolidated Reservoirs, J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1983), pp. 56-60.

14-36

44. Houchin, R. L., Dunlap, D. D., Hutchinson, J. E.: Formation Damage During Gravel Pack Completions, SPE 17166, Formation Damage Symposium, Bakersfield, Feb. 8-9, 1988.
45. Christian, W. W., Ayres, H. J.: Formation Damage Control in Sand Control and Stimulation
Work, SPE 4775, Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, Feb. 7-8, 1974.
46. Nini, C. J. and G. W. Owen: Successful High-Angle Gravel Packing Techniques, SPE 12105
presented at the 58th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, October 5-8,
1983.
47. Elson, T. D., Anderson, G. W.: Foam Gravel Packing, SPE 11013, presented at 57th Annual
Mtg., Sept. 26-29, 1982, New Orleans.
48. Neal, M. R., Carroll, J. F.: A Quantitative Approach to Gravel Pack Evaluation, J. Pet. Tech.
(June 1985), pp. 1035-1040.
49. Neal, Marvin R.: Gravel Pack Evaluation, Journal of Petroleum Technology, September 1983,
pp. 1611-1616.
50. Pashen, M. A., McLeod, H. 0.: Analysis of Post Audits for Gulf of Mexico Completions Leads to
Continuous Improvement in Completion Practices, SPE 36460, Denver, 6-9 Oct., 1996.

51. Yildiz, T., Longinais, J. P.: Calculation of Pressure Losses Across Gravel Packs, SPE 17167.
52. Bryant, D. W., Jones, L. G.: Completion and Production Results from Alternate-Path GravelPacked Wells, SPE Drilling and Completion, September, 1995.
53. Tiffin, D. L., King, G. E., Larese, R. E., Britt, L. K.: New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection
for Sand Control, SPE 39437.
54. Bigno, Y., M. B. Oyeneyin, and J. M. Peden: Investigation of Pore-Blocking Mechanism in
Gravel Packs in the Management and Control of Fines Migration, SPE 27342, presented at SPE
Intl Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, Feb 7-10, 1994.

55. Oyeneyin, M. B., J. M. Peden, A. Hosseini, G. Ren, and Y. Bigno: Optimum Gravel Sizing for
Effective Sand Control, SPE 24801, presented at the 67th Annual Tech Conf. and Exhibition of
SPE, Washington D.C., Oct 4-7, 1992.
56.

Markestad, P. and 0. Christie: Selection of Screen Slot Width to Prevent Plugging and Sand
Production, SPE 31087, presented at SPE Intl Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, La,
Feb 14-15,1996.

57.

Jennings, A. R. Jr.: Laboratory Studies of Fines Movement in Gravel Packs, presented at the
Annual Tech Conf. and Exhibition of SPE, Denver, CO, Oct 6-9, 1996.

58.

Reijnen, P. H. F., Trampert, R. A., and Samuel, A. J.: Plugging Potential of Gravel Carrier Fluids, Contaminated by Satellite Particles Originating from Gravels, paper SPE 36952, presented
at the 1996 SPE European Petroleum Conference halo in Milan Italy, Oct. 22-24,1996.

59.

Coberly, C. J.: Selection of Screen Openings for Unconsolidated Sands, API Drill. & Prod.
Practice (1937)

60.

Saucier, R. J.: Successful Sand Control Design for High Rate Oil and Water Wells, JPT,
Vol. 21, 1193, 1969

14-37

61.

Penberthy, W. L., and B. J. Cope: Design and Productivity of Gravel-Packed Completions,

JPT, Vol. 32, 1976, 1980.

62.

Bouhroum, A., and F. Civan: A Critical Review of Existing Gravei-Pack Design Criteria,
Paper 24, presented at 5th Petroleum Conference of the S.Saskatchewan Section, The Petroleum Soc. of CIM, Regina Oct. 18-20, 1993.

63.

Shucart, J. K., and A. F. Rustandaja: Gravel Packing in High-Rate Oil Completions,

SPE 22978, presented at SPE Asia-Pacific Conference held in Perth, Western Australia, Nov. 714, 1991.

64.

Burton, R. C., W. M. MacKinlay, R. M. Hodge, and W. R. Landrum: Evaluations Completion

Damage in High Rate, Gravel Packed Wells, SPE 31091, presented at SPE Intl Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, Feb 14-15, 1996.

65.

Beng-Swee Chuah, Hasumi, A. R., Samsudin, N., and Matzain, A.: Formation Damage in
Gravel Packed and Non-Gravel Packed Completions: A Comprehensive Case Study, Paper
SPE 27360, presented at the Formation Damage Control Symposium in Lafayette, Louisiana,
February 7-10,1994.

66.

Fletcher, P. A., Montgomery, C. T., Ramos, G. G., Guillory, R. J., and Francis, M. J.: Optimizing
Hydraulic Fracture Length to Prevent Formation Failure in Oil and Gas Wells, paper
SPE 27899, presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in Long Beach, CA.,
March 23-25,1994.

67.

Wong, G. K., R. R. Fors, J. S.Casassa, R. H. Hite, and J. Shlyapobersky: Design, Execution,

and Evaluation of Frac and Pack (F&P) Treatments in Unconsolidated Sand Formations in the
Gulf of Mexico, SPE 26563, presented at the 68th Annual Tech Conf. and Exhibition of SPE,
Houston, TX, Oct 3-6, 1993.

68.

Ayoub, J. A., R. D Barree, and W. C. Chu: Evaluation of Frac and Pack Completions and
Future Outlook, SPE 38184, presented at SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The
Hague, Netherlands, 2-3 June, 1997.

69. Hannah, R. R., Park, E. I., Walsh, R. E., Porter, D. A., Black, J. W. 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 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in Houston, TX., Oct. 3-6,1993.
70.

Hainey, B. W. and Troncoso, J. C.: Frac-Pack: An Innovative Stimulation and Sand Control
Technique, paper SPE 23777, presented at the Formation Damage Control help in Lafayette,
Louisiana, February 26-27,1992.

71.

Powell, K. R., R. L. Hathcock, M. E. Mullen, W. D. Norman, and P. D. Baycroft: Productivity

Performance Comparisons of High Rate Water Pack and Frac-Pack Completion Techniques,
SPE 38592, presented at the 1997 Annual Tech Conf. and Exhibition of SPE, San Antonio, TX.,
OCt 5-8, 1997.

72.

Muecke, T. W.: Formation Fines and Factors Controlling Their Movement in Porous Media,
JPT, (Feb 1979), 144-150.

73.
74.

Procyk, Alex, Pall Well Screens, Private Communication.

Shyrock, S.G.: Gravel-Packing Studies in a Full-Scale Deviated Model Wellbore, JPT,
(March 1983), pp 603-609.

14-38

75.

Leone, J. A., M. L. Mana, and J. B. Parmley: Gravel-Sizing Criteria for Sand Control and Productivity Optimization, SPE 20029, presented at the 60th California Regional Meeting of the
SPE, Ventura, CA, April 4-6, 1990.

76.

Chan, A. F. and J. P. Parmley: Gravel Sizing Criteria for Sand Control and Productivity Optimization: Part II - Evaluation of the Long-Termed Stability, SPE 23767, presented at SPE Intl
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, La, Feb 26-27, 1992.

14-39

Chapter 15: Workovers and Fluids

Well Control

Well control is the primary objective of any workover operation. Control is established by proper use of
both the equipment and the fluids required by the operation. Workover operations are undertaken for
many reasons, such as reworking the completion entry point, completing a new reservoir, multiple
completions, stimulations, or repairing mechanical or chemical problems. Each type of workover
action requires basic fundamentals for well control.
Well control during workovers and completions should be major concern since it ranked a close third
to development drilling and not far behind exploratory drilling in a study by Skalle and Podio, of 1200
wells over a 36 year time period.39

The following activity data prior to blowout shows a variety of failure causes; virtually the entire spectrum of workover jobs.

NO.of blowouts (60)vs. operationlactivity

n progress during the workover phase
TexaslOCS, 1960-1996)
)peration
BO Activity
'ulling well equip.
67 Pull tubing
Pull/driil out plugs
Stuck pipe
Pull WL
Cleaning well
Pull pump rod
Pull casing
Plugged pipe
Other
Missing activity data

Number of blowouts vs. operational phase In pmgress, 196&1995.

NO. Of blowouts (60)vs. operationlactivity

in progress during completion phase
(TexaslOCS, 1960-1996)
Operation
BO Activity
Installing equip.
41 WOC
Nipple down BOP
Run csg./tbg.
Set well plugs
Cementingcasing
initial production
Other
Missing activity data

Circulation

Running well equip.

Well testing
Perforation
Other
Missing operation data
Total

17

Killing
Casing running
Cleaning well
Gas liftinghnitiateprod.
Other
Missing activity data

BC
2E
1c
4

i
l=

BO
17

istalling equip.

25

4
3
2
2
4

3
2
3
3
3
3
3

9
8
5
4

5
89

Lbandon well

'erforation
Xrculation
kmning equip.
Vell testing
killing activity
Mer
Aissing operation data

btal

15-1

29

21
17
16
9
8
9
19
220

Run tubing
Install BOP
Run WL
Nipple down BOP
Other
Missing activity data
Pull tubing
Set well plugs
Killing
Pull casing
Other
Missing activity data

7
4

i
i
7
5
11
L

4
c

Control of a well is achieved by controlling the entry of fluid from the formation (a kick) and the loss of
fluid from the wellbore (fluid loss). Control of formation fluid entry is achieved by using a workover fluid
that exerts sufficient pressure to keep the formation fluids from entering the wellbore. The pressure
exerted by a fluid is the product of its density and its vertical height above the pay. Prevention of loss
of fluid from the wellbore is achieved by using only the minimum overbalance (pressure differential)
toward the formation for necessary control and using fluid loss control products when required.
The static weight of fluid is important, but there are considerations such as circulating backpressure in
the annulus that can cause the formation to feel more pressure than the wellbore fluid is exerting.
When there are pressure losses during circulating, the pressure felt by the formation is called the
equivalent circulating density or ECD.

ECD, ppg

[ PAL/(0.052x TVD ) ]

+ pmud

PAL = annular pressure loss, psi

7VD = true vertical depth, ft
pmud = mud density, ppg
Example 15.1

Annular pressure loss is 125 psi in a 7000 ft well where a 9.5 ppg brine is being circulated at 6 bpm.
What is the equivalent circulating density?

ECD

[ 125/(0.052X 7000 ) ]

+ 9.5

9.84 lb/gal

Kicks are a rare but an almost unavoidable part of workovers. A kick is defined as an undesirable
entry of formation fluids into the wellbore or tubing. The entry of formation fluid occurs simply because
the formation pressure exceeded the pressure exerted by the workover fluid at the face of the formation. Kicks can occur even when the wellbore fluid is heavier than the formation pressure gradient if
the application of the fluid pressure is disturbed even momentarily by the swabbing action of pulling a
bit, packer or other large diameter tool.
The causes of kicks are varied but all have the same initiating factor-an inward pressure differential
(however brief) that allows the formation to flow. Adams18 describes four major causes of kicks during
workovers and gives descriptions. *2 The following four paragraphs are adapted from his work.
Insufficient mud weight is a predominate cause of kicks. When a permeable formation is exposed to a
wellbore pressure less than the pore pressure, the formation will begin to flow. A common occurrence
of this phenomenon during workovers is in washing through sand bridges or in milling over packers.
Pressure below the bridge or plug that may be much greater than the hydrostatic pressure of the workover fluid. This problem may be particularity acute when a gas bubble has migrated up and is waiting
under the bridge. When the seal is broken, the gas and workover fluid may rapidly swap places as the
gas rises.
Improper hole fill-up during tripping of pipe is very common. As the tubing is pulled out of the well,
workover fluid must be added to compensate for the volume loss of the steel pipe. When the pipe is
removed, the volume of fluid in the well is decreased and less vertical height of fluid is available for
pressure maintenance. The problem is increased when a wet string is removed since not only the
steel but the mud within the tubing is removed as well. Any method may be used to fill the hole, but it
must be capable of providing a tally of the volume used to fill the hole. The two methods most commonly used to monitor hole fillup are a trip tank or pump stroke measuring. A trip tank is any small
tank with a calibration device capable of monitoring the volume of mud entering the hole. Measuring
the strokes of a positive displacement pump is also an indication of volume.

15-2

Example 15.2
How many pump strokes are needed to supply kill fluid to balance the removal of 10 stands (93 ft per
stand) of pipe with a displacement of 0.0032 bbl/ft?
Pump Information:

Example - single acting triplex, 3" liner, 6 in. stroke

pump output = 0.000243 x (3)* x 6
pump output = 0.01 31 bbl/stroke

Solution 10 stands tubing, displacement

10 stands x 93 ft/stand x 0.0032 bbl/ft = 2.976 bbl
= 2.976 bb1/0.0131 bbktroke
= 227 strokes per 10 stands

Swabbing is a routine operation when trying to achieve fluid entry into the formation. Like a pump, a
seal assembly is moved upward in the hole, forcing the wellbore fluids above it and creating a brief,
low pressure area below it. Accidental swabbing during tripping, however, has the same action but different consequences. Tripping with a drillstring or workover string can exert a large drawdown on the
formation. Among the variables affecting swab pressures during tripping operations are: pipe pulling
speed, mud properties, hole/casing configuration and the effect of tools in the pipe string that increase
the effective diameter. Adams presents a few of the factors in a chart of pressure reduction vs. pulling
speed.' The mud weight is 14 Ib/gal and the pipe being pulled is 4-1/2" OD with a bit.

Notice that the maximum pressure reduction (maximum swab) occurs for small clearances of tubingto-casing or hole and for rapid pipe pulling speed. It is also important to remember that the swab pressure is added to the pressure reduction resulting from not keeping the hole full as pipe is pulled.
Swab pressure or surge pressure (the increase in equivalent kill fluid density produced by the piston
effect while running pipe into the well can be calculated as illustrated in Example 15.3. The formulas
are empirical equations collected and published by Lapeyro~se.~
His book of formulas is highly recommended.
Example 15.3
Calculate the surge and swab pressure effects for running and pulling a 4.5" 0.d. perforating gun
(120 ft long) on 2-7/8" tubing (6.5 Ib/ft, 2.441" i.d.) through 7"casing (29 Ib/ft, 6.1 84" i.d.) at an average trip speed of 20 seconds per stand (a stand for this rig is two 30 ft joints). The fluid in the 8000 ft
hole is 9 ppg brine.

Ave. pipe speed = [(60 ft/stand) / (20 sec/stand)] x 60 sec/min = 180 ft/rnin

fluid velocity

10.45 +

*"'

6.1842 - 4S2

15-3

180

284 Wmin

Vm,max pipe velocity

(284 x 1.5)

426 Wsec

(the fluid velocity and max pipe velocity formulas employ field derived constants: 0.45 and 1.5 respectively)
The pressure change, P,, for each interval is:'

P,

0.00077 x
=

p;id

Q 1 s 8

x P2
xL

( D h - Dt) 3 x ( D h + Dt) 1.8

where:
pmud = mud density, ppg
Q
= equivalent flow rate
V
= plastic viscosity, cps
L
= tool length, ft
Dh = hole diameter (or casing i.d. if cased), in.
Dt
= tool o.d., in.

The equivalent flow rate, Q,

Q = 426 [6.184 - 4S2] = 313

24.5

P,

(0.00077)(9)O.*(313) 1-8(1)o*2(120)
= 5 psi
(6.184- 4.5) (6.184 + 4.5)

When running the gun in, an additional force of 5 psi is felt. When pulling the gun out, 5 psi less pressure is felt.
The 5 psi pressure change is almost negligible. In terms of mud weight change, it would be
5/0.052/8000= 0.01 ppg.
The effects of surge or swab pressures can be much more severe, however, when running speeds are
high and/or clearances are small. Consider a 6 ft long packer with an effective 5.9" diameter in the
previous example, but ran or pulled at 360 Wmin (6 Wsec) average speed.

fluid velocity, V =

[0.45 + 6.18425'92- 5.921360

15-4

3814Wmin

Vm = 3 8 1 4 ~1.5

Q=

Ps

5721

5721 (6.1842- 5.g2)

24.5

801

0.00077 (9)Om8 (801) ( 1 ) o.2 (6) = 2223 psi

(6.184-5.9)3(6.184+5.9)
'a8

The surge or swab force under these conditions is very high and would account for a:

2223 psi/0.052/8000'= 5.3 lb/gal.

difference in the mud weight. While running in, a force of 9 + 5.3 = 14.3 Ib/gal fluid density would be
felt; possibly enough to fracture the formation. While pulling out, the 9 ppg kill fluid density would be
reduced to 4.7 ppg; probably low enough to allow a kick.
Running open end pipe requires a slight adjustment to the fluid velocity formula.

(0.45 + Dh2- DP+

012

where Di is the inside diameter of the tubing and the 0.d. of the tubing is used for Dt. Vp is the average
pipe velocity in Wmin. Running open end small diameter tubing in a large diameter wellbore rarely creates a problem. In small diameter holes or through restrictions, however, pressure surges (or swabs)
can be very high.
Another factor that can sharply increase the pressure effects of swabbing or surging is load fluid viscosity. Higher viscosity fluids resist flow around tools or pipes and cause higher pressures.
Gas contamination may be a source of kicks although the frequency is less than other causes. Even
with a gas cut fluid, the density reduction is usually severe only at the surface where the total hydrostatic pressure is not usually significantly affected. Gas dispersion at higher pressures does not
greatly affect density since the gas does not occupy much space.
When a kick is taken, there are several warning signs that may be evident. Most are concerned with
the net rate of fluid production or injection in a well, such as pit gain, well flowing with the pumps off
and needing too little fluid to fill the hole during a trip. A change in the hook load weight indicator may
also indicate that a less buoyant or more buoyant fluid than the workover fluid is entering the hole.

Shut-In
If there is any doubt that a kick is being taken, shut it in and check the pressures. The shut-in pressures are those pressures present at the surface on the work string and casing during a closed in condition. The bottomhole formation pressure is equal to the sum of the shut-in tubing pressure, SITP,
and the hydrostatic pressure of the fluid in the tubing. The shut-in casing pressure, SICP,at the surface may also be used to calculate the bottomhole pressure, provided the annular mud hydrostatic
pressure and the annular influx hydrostatic pressure are known--this is usually not the case.

15-5

(Re)Gaining Control
Regaining control or killing a well after a kick requires reestablishing an outward pressure differential
at the face of the f ~ r m a t i o n . Several
~,~
variables control the kill procedures available for workover
operations. These include the fluid density needed for control (magnitude of the formation pressure/wellbore pressure differential), casing burst strength and formation fracture pressure. The
method of fluid placement is also important.
There are two types of fluid circulation: down the tubing and up the annulus, or reverse circulating-down the annulus and up the tubing. This assumes, of course, that circulation is possible. Problems
such as bridges in the tubing or annulus, plugged nozzles, stuck sleeves or ports, holes high in the
tubing, float valve stuck closed in the tubing string, permanent packer or other problem may prevent
circulation. When circulation is not possible under the conditions in the well, fluid may be lubricated or
bullheaded into the well, or circulation may be restored by a repair or bypass operation.
Lubrication of fluid into the well involves alternate stages of pumping fluid into a well and then allowing
the lighter weight fluid, usually gas, to escape while the heavier fluid falls to bottom. The process is
repeated until the tubing is full of kill fluid and it is produced through the choke. The cycle is then
restarted with a heavier kill fluid and so on until the well is dead. The pressure and pump record of a
lubrication kill is shown in Figure 15.1 .3 The lubrication method is used on high pressure wells that do
not have the extra wellhead pressure rating on the well pressure (bull heading would exceed surface
pressure limits). It is also used where the bull heading is not possible. The draw back is that it is time
consuming.

.I4

2 1,000

SITP bled down before pump-in

An example problem for lubrication where the surface pressure is reduced sufficiently to allow bull
heading is given in the example (from Adams) below.3
Example 15.4
Plan a lubrication kill.
Wellhead pressure rating = 5,000 psi
SITP = 4,800 psi
N-80, 4.7 Ib/ft
Tubing 2-3/8",
Perfs = 13,795 ft
Solution:

15-6

1. Estimate the expected pressure reduction for each bbl of 9.0 Ib/gal brine pumped into the well
tbg capacity = 0.003870 bbl/ft = 258.8 ftlbbl (121 psi/bbl). Press reduction = 258.8 Wbbl x
(9 lb/ga1/42 gal/bbl) x 0.052 = 121 psi/bbl.
2. Rig up all surface equip. including pumps and gas line flare.
3. Open choke to allow gas to escape and temporarily reduce the SITP.
4. Close choke. Pump in 9 Ib/gal brine until tubing pressure = 4800 psi.
5. Wait for brine to fall in the tubing. This may take 1/4 to 1 hr depending on gas density, pressure
and tubing size.
6. Open choke and bleed gas until 9 Ib/gal brine begins to escape.

7. Close choke and pump in 9 Ib/gal brine.

8. Continue steps 4-7 until a low wellhead pressure is achieved.
The shut-in time in Step 5 is for the gas to migrate upward at about 17 to 35 ft per min (gas migration
is a function of liquid density and viscosity). The necessary shut-in time is determined by how soon the
gas cap over the brine is exhausted during the bleed off step. In deep wells, gas migration time is
quite long.
Operators cannot always solve critical well control problems with conventional circulation. Often, the
tubing will be parted or plugged and unconventional techniques are needed. The technique of bull
heading is one in which the fluid in the well is pumped down the well ahead of a full column of fluid and
the entire contents of the well is forced under pressure into a formation. The formation that takes the
fluid will almost always be the weakest opened (fractured) formation. Normal bull heading is accomplished either below the fracturing pressure for routine operations (with clean fluid and sufficient permeability) or above the fracture pressure for operations in which well control must be quickly
reestablished.
Using bull heading operations is useful under several well control conditions. Among these are:
1. The material in the well contains more H2S than can be handled with surface facilities.
2. Plugged or parted drill pipe cannot be used to circulate the mud to the bottom of the well.
3. Excessive surface pressure would be created (usually on a gas well).

4. Bull heading may be used to gain time when materials or other equipment are in short supply.
Bull heading has several crucial disadvantages and should be used only when necessary. Some of the
problems which make bull heading difficult in well completion operation 81-8:~
1. Crews do not fully understand the technique.
2. Fluid will go to the weakest interval and may not followed the preferred path. This might include
a shallow formation breaking down and accepting fluid without being able to remove gas-cut fluid
in the deeper part of the well.

15-7

3. Potential is created for an underground blowout or surface eruption if the pressure is raised
above the formation fracturing pressure.
4. Even a successful bullhead may not kill the well if the entire wellbore cannot be displaced and
replaced with the correct kill fluid.
A normal workover operation may use several bull head kills and pills may be bull headed down the
well to serve as fluid loss agents. Bull heading may also be used in combination with circulation on
various special operations.

Bull heading in drilling is considerably different than in the workover because during drilling, the formation is usually exposed to a mud that contains solids and will develop wall building on fluid leakoff.
When bull heading with mud, fracturing is often the only resort, whereas in workovers, injection below
the fracturing pressure is possible.
Alternatives to bull heading include restoration of circulation by either cleaning out the plugged work
string or perforating at a point above the damage. Although both systems will work if circulation can be
restored at a sufficient depth, there is not always time to get a complete cleanout of the plug or bypass
before the well could give problems.
When bull heading, a rate of pumping faster than the gas migration rate up the tubulars is required to
establish well control. There are no wide-range estimates of bubble rise velocity in conventional fluids;
however, estimates of approximately 1 ft per second bubble rise in clear low density fluids and several
ft per minute in viscous muds or fluids are often stated. The tubing and casing size also affects the
bubble rise rate.
Adams gives guidelines for bull heading that emphasize ~ a f e t y . ~
1. If pump-in pressures approach the rig pump limit, use a cementing unit or other high-pressure

pump for better control.

2. Large kill fluid reserves should be available. Bull heading may create lost returns, especially if

bull heading is above the parting pressure.

3. Select safe tie-in points at the BOP above the rams.

4. Install check valves in the pump-in lines so that lines can be repaired.

One of the key rules in bull heading is to remain patient for the heavier fluid to fall in the well after
pump in. This may take several minutes to over half an hour.
When a well cannot be circulated because of a deep obstruction or permanent packer problem, a hole
can be punched in the tubing with a tubing puncher perforating device. These devices can create a
hole@) in the tubing without damaging the casing. In this situation, reverse circulating is normal. This
operation requires that the fluid in the annulus be in condition to circulate. Orienting the perforating
device is necessary in a multiple completion to avoid damaging the other tubing strings. Other tools
are available that will completely cut off the tubing.
In some cases, a concentric workover approach is useful. These techniques are coiled tubing or small
diameter tubes. They are limited in pump rate by high internal friction but are rigid enough to break
through some bridges. A drill bit with a downhole mud motor may be added to either. Care must be
exercised in the case of coiled tubing with high weight brines in a gas well. Without the buoyancy of an
outside fluid, the tensile load of a coiled tubing loaded with a heavy brine may exceed the tensile
strength of the material near the wellhead.

15-8

Pulling the tubing out of a permanent packer to achieve circulation is a common operation but may
introduce a risk on a high pressure or sour gas well since it requires a partial tear down of the tree to
pick up the tubing. Once the tree is opened, a major control point is lost.
Washing Debris from Wellbores

Removal of debris from a wellbore, whether that debris is drill cuttings, sand, metal mill cuttings or
other material, can be accomplished by normal circulation (flow down the tubing and up the annulus)
or by reverse circulation (flow down the annulus and up the tubing). The primary factor affecting success of cleanouts is selection of the fluid and the pump rate to clean the wellbore. The requirements
for a cleanout fluid system are determined by several independent and related factors in the workover.
These include the type and density of the particles being removed, the wellbore pressure, the friction
pressure, the various operational considerations for handling fluids (including disposal) and the relationship between the density of the particle and the flow velocity. Bottomhole pressure is one of the
most important considerations. In most cases, the bottomhole circulating pressure should be close to
the well's bottom hole pressure. This assumes that the well can be controlled during solids removal
without fracturing the formation by excess pressure.
Lifting of solids is influenced by the effective viscosity, the flow rate and the shape, size and density of
the material being removed. The debris will have a certain settling rate in the circulating fluid. To
remove the solids, the flow rate must be sufficient for the vertical upward velocity to be more than the
settling rate of the largest pieces of debris in the circulating fluid. For normal circulation, this is represented by:'

where:
PSR = particle settling ratio
= upward velocity of fluid in the annulus, Wmin.
Vf
Vps = downward velocity of particle (settling rate), Wmin.

When PSB1, the particle rises in the wellbore and when less than one, it settles. PSR=l is the static
case. PSR must be greater than 1 to clean the wellbore. As PSR increases, the cleaning proceeds
much faster and requires less circulation time for cleanout.
To select a PSR of greater than one (you are really selecting a Vfgreater than Vps),you must have an
idea of the settling rate of the particle in the fluid. The most common debris encountered in cleanouts
are sand, formation fragments and steel cuttings. The size and shape of the debris is at the heart of
the lift consideration2 Small steel turnings of 0.06" wide (1.5 mm), 0.01" thick (0.25 mm) and 1" long
(25.4 mm) have a settling rate of about 40 Wmin. in water, whereas steel chips about 0.25" wide
(6.4 mm), 0.25" thick (6.4 mm) and 1" long (25.4 mm) have a settling rate of about 250 Wmin. With
this wide of a variance in settling rate, you could see some steel cutting circulated out at the surface
while building up a large mass of the larger particles around the mill. In effect, the mill runs on the cuttings and penetration rate drops to near zero. Although the commonly encountered sand sizes are
closer in size comparison than steel cuttings, typical frac sand is -20+40 mesh (0.033 in. or 0.84 mm
to 0.017 in. or 0.42 mm), sand can clump into small "wads" and sink faster than individual particles.

15-9

Formation chips offer a very wide range from micron size fines to bolders the size of the wellbore. The
following data is a general range of settling velocities.

Debris Settling Rate in Water

Steel Chips

1 0.25''square-

long

76.2

For complete hole cleaning, you must remove all the debris. When a PSR value is selected, the Vf
component is plugged into the following equation to get pump rate Q in bpm. The do value is the i.d. of
the outer pipe (the outer casing or the open hole) and the djis the 0.d. of the inner pipe (the tubing or
drill pipe). Since Vfis the minimum velocity necessary for lift, the pump rate Q necessary to produce Vf
should be calculated in the largest annular configuration in the circulation wellpath (largest casing i.d.
and corresponding tubing or drill pipe 0.d.
Debris removal is complicated by changes in the annular cross sectional area. If the cuttings slow
down in an area, they can bridge the pipe. This is especially true with metal cuttings that "nest" or
intertwine.2-5

Example: Find the flow rate necessary to wash -20+40 mesh frac sand from 6500 ft in 7" (29 Ib/ft) casing with 2-3/8" (4.7 Ib/ft) tubing in normal circulation. The circulation fluid will be water.
For the particles to be lifted, P S b l , and V p V p 3 5 5 ft/min.

Q-

(55 ft/min) (6.1842- 1.9952) = 18.4BPM

102.6

A quick check of the friction pressure of water in 2-3/8" tubing, Figure 15.1 a, shows the friction pressure to be 400 psi/lOO ft of tubing length. This would result in a total friction loss of 65 x 400 =
26,000 psi; a pressure above the pipe maximum. In short, to remove debris from large annular areas,
a fluid is needed in which the particles have a slow settling rate.
Washing out sand or lifting cuttings from a milling workover requires a fluid that will lift all cuttings to
the surface. This requires a fluid with a high yield point or effective viscosity. The shear rates of various flow conditions are as follows:
Shear inside drillstring = 275 to 450 sec-'
Annular shear = 12 to 90 sec-'
Shear at the mill = 200 to 1200 sec-'

15-10

1 FRICTION PRESSURE VS FLOW RATE I

FRICTION PRESSURE VS FLOW RATE

TUBULARCONOUCTORS

(From Halliburton's Frac Book)

Figure 15.la: Friction pressure charts for 1 cp Newtonian fluid in tubulars (left) and in
annular flow areas.

In normal circulation, once the mill face is passed in fluid flow, the shear rate drops to very small values; and at common flow rates, the fluids must support the cuttings.
Regardless of what type of tubing that is in the well or the type of system that is being used to remove
solids from the wellbore, the returned fluids should be monitored at the shale shaker or return tank to
see that suspended solids are moving up the wellbore. Ifthe solids are not moving, the viscosity of the
fluid or the flow rate should be increased to assist in the lift of these particles.
In the worst case of milling operations in which steel particles are to be lifted from the wellbore, the
most effective fluid appears to be a mud with a very high yield point. Experience in several areas has
shown that a yield point of 100 or more is necessary to achieve removal of the cuttings. If the cuttings
in a milling operation are not removed, the mill will turn and grind on the cuttings and penetration will
be effectively stopped.
Pressure Effects

High- and low-pressure wells both create special problems for solids removal from a well. In the case
of high reservoir pressure wells, a heavy fluid will be needed to maintain well control by increasing
fluid density across the pay zone. For other than clear brines, an increase in fluid density often brings
a friction pressure increase which can reduce circulating rate. In low reservoir pressure wells, supporting a full column of fluid is often difficult. In these cases, foamed fluids with hydrostatic heads of 2-6
Ib/gal are often satisfactory alternatives. Besides having a low fluid density, the foams have excellent
lift capacity when compared to gelled waters. In the case of wells with low fracture gradients, care
must be taken to prevent holding large backpressures on the well while circulating. Backpressure
effects are added to the weight of the fluid in the well to determine the effective hydrostatic head at the
formation phase. Large hydrostatic heads should usually be avoided from a fracturing danger stand-

15-11

point and also from erosional considerations in the area near the end of the wash pipe or tubing.
Chokes have been suggested as a method of control to avoid downhole backpressures; however,
chokes must be rigged with solids control capacity to prevent abrasion of the choke by solids.
Kill Procedures

Several types of shut-in procedures are useful in well completion operations. The type of kill procedure will depend upon the type of rig. Adams lists the shut-in procedure variations according to type of
rig and operation encountered:92i5 For further information, the reader is referred to Adams literature.

1. Drilling or workover immobile rig

2. Tripping - immobile rig

3. Drilling or workover floating rig

4. Tripping floating rig

An immobile rig does not move in relation to the work string during operations. Shut-in procedures for
workovers are:
1. After sign of kick, raise the kelly above rotary.
2. Stop mud pumps.

3. Close annular preventer.

4. Read and record SITP, SICP, and pit gain.

Kicks during a tripping operation are frequently missed in the early stages because the crew is occupied with tubing handling.
1. Set the top tool joint above the slips when the kick is detected.
2. Install and makeup a full opening, fully opened safety valve in the work string.

3. Close the safety valve and blow out preventer.

4. Pickup and makeup the kelly.

5. Open the safety valve.

6. Read and record the SITP, SlCP and pit gain.

The use of the full opening valve permits entry of logging or perforating equipment.
Operations from a floater must take into account the problems of pipe movement, even when the vessel is equipped with a motion compensator. A problem common to the floaters is that the operator
must space out the string so that a tool joint does not interfere with the closing of the preventer elements. This is complicated when the BOP is located on the sea floor. To achieve a solution, the rams
should be closed, then the string slowly lowered until a tool joint contacts the rams. The position of the
kelly can then be marked (Adams).

15-12

1. When a kick is detected, raise the kelly to the position of the previous space out test (tool joint
above the rams).
2. Stop the mud pumps.
3. Close the annular preventer.
4. Close the upper set of pipe rams.

5. Reduce the hydraulic pressure of the annular preventer.

6. Lower the pipe until it is entirely supported by the rams.

7. Read and record SITP, SlCP and pit gain.

By hanging the string off of the close pipe rams, the wear on the preventers caused by vessel motion
is minimized.
Shut-in procedures during tripping on a floater combine some of the previous techniques.
1. When a kick is observed, set the top tool joint on the slips.
2. Install and makeup a full opening, fully opened safety valve in the work string.

3. Close the safety valve and the annular preventer.

4. Pickup and make up the kelly.

5. Open the safety valve.

6. Read and record SITP, SlCP and pit gain.

After the shut-in pressures are measured, the kill fluid weight must be calculated. Normally, the shut-in
tubing pressure is used since it is less affected by encroaching fluids. The following equations may be
used to estimate the fluid weight:

MKw

(S/TP+ Pht) BHP

0.052 x Depth
0.052 Depth

where:
Adkw = fluid weight necessary to kill the well, Ib/gal
SlTP = surface shut-in tubing pressure, psi
Pht = hydrostatic tubing pressure, psi = density x depth
BHP = bottomhole pressure
The Pht term is not useful when the tubing is filled with different density fluids.

15-13

Circulating

When the string is near the bottom of the well, circulating the kick out of the well is the most common
kill. The rig pumps are normally used and an adjustable surface choke is used to hold a backpressure.
The back pressure is especially useful as gas nears the surface to prevent rapid gas expansion and
sudden fluid density decrease. Conventional or reverse circulation may be used depending on downhole equipment. Reverse circulation is usually not used when nozzles on a bit or in a wash tool might
become plugged by cuttings picked up in the well.
Circulation will cause both the tubing pressure and the annulus pressure to change. The tubing pressure will rise steadily then fall as a kill is achieved, Figure 15.2. The casing pressure will fluctuate,
especially as the kick gas nears the surface (in normal circulation).

BARRELS F'UYPED

Figure 15.2: A pressure record of a circulation kill of a kick.

Kicks that occur when a string is not on bottom require bull heading, lubricating, concentric tubing
work, or snubbing (also called stripping-in). Snubbing is a operation that inserts the tubing into the
well while maintaining a seal with special equipmenLG8
Snubbing

Snubbing units provide a convenient method for running pipe in and out of wells under pressure. A
snubbing units uses unidirectional slips that force pipe into or retrieves it from a well that is under
pressure. The force applied to the slips to run the tubing into or out of the well may be from hydraulic
cylinders or from wireline assistance from the rig. The ease with which the pipe is forced into the well
is dependent upon whether the pipe weight exceeds the mathematical product of the closed-end pipe
area times the wellhead pressure.
In the early part of the snubbing operation, the snubbing unit is forcing the pipe into the hole against
the pressure. When the weight of the pipe offsets the pressure effect, the breakover point has been
reached, and the operation changes from snubbing (pushing into the well against pressure) to stripping (holding back on the pipe and maintaining the seal. The breakover point can be easily calculated.
Example 15.5

Determine the force created on closed end, 3-1/2",

(10.2 Ib/ft, 2.922" i.d.) tubing, in a hole filled with
10 ppg brine and a surface pressure of 1500 psi.

15-14

Force = (3.5)2(0.7854)(1500)= 14,432Ib

The breakover point will be reached (if pressure remains constant) when:

14' 432 lb
10.2 lb/ft

1415 ft of 3-1/2"pipe

has been run into the hole.

Snubbing units offer advantages since they can operate efficiently at high pressures and allow the
pipe rotation. The units may be rig assisted, using the drawworks to provide power or may be hydraulically operated units that are stand alone equipment. Capacities of the snubbing units range from 1"
to over 5-1/2"pipe. Various weight capacities are available. A chart on a few of the units is provided in
Figure 15.3. Regardless of the system employed to place the pipe into the well, pressure in the wellbore will increase since volume is being added. Proper pressure maintenance (bleeding off pressure
as pipe is run in) must be used to prevent either fracturing of the formation or entry of additional fluid
into the wellbore as pipe is withdrawn (add fluid). The two processes most often used are the volumetric method and the pressure method.

11111

Ton8

am

Control

U d l

1 Double

have:Ling

block and

hook

equAliring
1WP

ter balance
weights

tripper
Stati-rY
rubber
'lip'
Vent l i n e

Above l e f t : hydraulic snubbing unit

Abhbooa right: nachanical, rig a a l i s t anubbing unit
5 e l w : BOP sshsmatic for a snubbing unit

(From Franklin and Abel, World

Oil, Jan. 1989)

Figure 15.3: Equipment used

in snubbing and
stripping.
L4gg.t. e t a l .

SPE 22824)

As the pipe goes into the well, the pressures will rise due to compression of the fluids. If the pressure
rise is uncontrolled, the formation will fracture. To reduce the pressure, a volume of fluid equal to the
volume of pipe force into the well is bled off. The total displacement of the closed-end string is used in
the calculations since a backpressure valve is placed in the string at the first joint snubbed in. Operation of the choke is of critical importance to prevent too much surface pressure.8

15-15

The pressure method uses the surface pressure to balance the bottomhole formation pressure and
prevent further entry of fluids. The surface pressure used is the dynamic pressure rather than the
static pressure from the BOPs, and the process can be used on snubbing in and out, while the volumetric method is useful only in running in. The pressure method provides more accurate volume control.
CompletionMlorkover Fluids

Regardless of the intention of the workover or completion, the fluids used must satisfy at least two
considerations: 0-13
1. Control the well.
2. Protect the formation against permanent permeability damage.

Figure 15.4 shows the densities and safety information on the most common workover and kill fluids.
Fluid

Density Range

Density Range

Figure 15.4: Common workover fluid properties

The correlation between API gravity and specific gravity is:

Normally, the least expensive fluid that satisfies the two major conditions and can still be used in the
location is selected for use. The fluid selected for use must be considered as just a base fluid-chemical and physical operations are usually required to make an acceptable, fluid for long term use.
Produced waters, fresh waters, and surface brine waters (brackish) all have to be treated. Each has
its own individual problems. Produced waters have oil carryover, scale potential, suspended solids,

15-16

and corrosion products. Fresh water has oxygen or other gases, solids, and bacterial problems, plus it
may need to be treated to prevent clay swelling in sensitive sandstones. Brackish water or sea water
contains several forms of detrimental bacteria, gases and may form sulfate scales when mixed with
formation waters with a high calcium or barium content.
Hydrocarbons liquids for workover fluids may be produced oil or refined product depending on the
need and the economics. Produced oil is the most common, but can actually be damaging if allowed
to weather or if the oil forms emulsions with water from other zones. Refined products such as diesel,
kerosene, xylene, etc., are alternatives for special applications. Even refined products, in the instance
of diesel, can be damaging, however, because of the large amount of filterable solids (usually waxes)
that may cause plugging damage.
Although gases are usually not considered workover fluids, gas-in-water emulsions, or foams, are
very useful for pressure control in low pressure
Stable foams with densities of 1 to 5 Ib/gal are
achievable. Since one of the criteria for a well completion fluid is that it control the well, the density of
the fluid must be high enough to exert an outward differential pressure with the depth of the fluid to be
used. If the pay is a multiple completion, all the exposed pays must be controlled at once. Obviously,
this means controlling the highest pressure without breaking down the easiest fractured zone.
A variety of soluble salts may be added to water to bring the density to values in excess of 16 Ib/gal.
The type of salt that is used will depend on the sensitivities of the formation (if any) or scaling tendencies of any combination of the salt laden workover fluid and the formation water, and it will also
depend on what weight of brine is needed. Low weight brines, below 10 Ib/gal, may be attained by
potassium chloride or ammonium chloride, both of which are relatively expensive or by sodium chloride, which is often available as produced field salt water. Moderate weight brines of 10 to 14.5 Ib/gal
are calcium chloride (to 12 Ib/gal), calcium bromide, or mixtures of the two. Heavy weight brines
encompass calcium bromide/zinc bromide and zinc bromide b r i n e ~ . l ~The
- ~ l obvious drawbacks to
heavier weight brines are cost and environmental concerns. Also, an increase in brine weight usually
increases corrosion. The less obvious problem is one of temperature stability and dilution. Addition of
some salts, especially in low concentration, often causes a freezing point depression, which is useful
in cold operation areas. Further addition of salt however, especially near the saturation point, produces a solution with an apparent higher freezing point. Actually, the salt saturation point decreases
with decreasing temperature but salt precipitate may plug lines, valves tubing as temperature is
reduced and salt solubility is lost. Temperature stability diagrams, Figures 15.5, are available for all
the common heavy clear workover brines and the storage and use operations should remain in the
solubility envelope. Remember the special case of offshore completions that the minimum temperature may be reached at the seafloor. At the higher densities, the actual density of the fluids may
change by a few tenths of a lb/gal due to thermal expansion as they are pumped into a hot well.
Density Correction - Temperature Only
Dc
Dc
Dm

= Dm [l+ Ve ( T m - TA]

Tm

= Temperature at

Ve
Tc

= Corrected density (density at 60F (16OC)

= Measured density

which Dm is measured
= Volume expansion factor
= Standard formulation temperature

Ve x 1 0 + ~
3.49

4.06
2.80

Density (PPa
9.0
9.5
12.0

15-17

Brine
NaCl
NaCl
NaBr

70

60
50

40

II.

30
D

20

10

2 0
s

4 -10

3x -20

& -30

-40
8

10

11 12

13

I&

15

16

17

18

19

(Bleakley, PEI, Aug. 1980)

Figure 15.5: Crystallization points of some clear brines showing

erratic behavior at different compositions. The anomaly in the crystallization temperature of CaC12/ZnBr2/CaBr2. Brines formulated in different ways will have
different crystallization behavior.

Example 15.6
(from Osca Brine Technical Manual)

15-18

What is the density at 60F (16C) of a fluid with a 16.4 ppg density at 85F (29"C)?

[I

Dc= (16.4)

+ 0.000252 (85 - 60)]

Dc= 16.5

ppg

Example 15.7

What is the density at 275F (135C) of a brine with a surface density of 14.0 ppg at 60F (16"C)?
14.0 = D, [i+ 0.000253 (275 - SO)]
Dm = 13.3ppg

Table 15.1
Brine Type

Upper Density
Limit

Saturation
Crystal.
Temp.

The volume corrections in Table 15.2 help convert density to other commonly used factors.

To Convert From
kilogramSA
pounds per gallon (US)
pounds per gallon (US)
pounds per gallon (US)
pounds per gallon (US)

To
pounds per gallon
grams per liter
kilograms per liter
kilograms per cubic meter
pounds per cubic foot

Multiply By
8.33
120
0.12
120
7.48

All aqueous brines can be diluted by water from any source, and the issue of dilution is one without a
solution. The best treatment of the fluid involves adequate pressure controls to minimize mixing (and
weight reduction) by formation fluids. The heavier brines should also be stored in covered tanks to
minimize fresh water addition by rain or absorption. Changing brine density by adding salt must be
done carefully to end up with the required weight and to avoid salt precipitation. Different techniques
are used for single salt fluids (e.g., NaCl or CaCI,) and two salt fluids.

15-19

Example 15.8

Density increase in a single salt fluid.

A tank has 200 bbl of a 10.5 Ib/gal CaCI2 brine. The required density is 11.O Ib/gal. Determine the
amount of CaCI2 to add and the final volume of the brine.

Vj

= 200 bbls

Dj
Df

= 11 .O Ib/gal

= 10.5 Ib/gal
= 0.906 bbl water (from Table 15.3)

W,
Sj
Sf

bbl water (from Table 15.3)

= 123.9 Ibs per barrel (from Table 15.3)
= 155.2 Ibs per barrel (from Table 15.3)
= 0.880

Salt addition (lb)

w)- Si]

V i [ ( WiSf

Final volume =

= 206

7177 lbs of CaC12 ( added)

Ibs of 11.O Ib/gal brine

Table 15.3: Calcium Chloride (94%-97% purity) Data for Brines

Density,7O0F
--

PP9
8.5
L

9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.o
11.5

For One Barrel Brine

Pounds Dry CaCI2
f.6
34.9
63.8
93.6
123.9
155.2
186.3
~

Barrels Fresh Water

0.996
0.977
0.956
0.932
0.906
0.880
0.847

~~

Example 15.9

Density increase in a two salt brine.

A tank has 400 bbl of 12.5 Ib/gal CaBr2/CaC12 brine. The brine density must be raised to 14 Ib/gal.
Determine how much of each salt should be added and the final volume of the brine after density
adjustment.

Vj

=400 bbl

15-20

Di
Df

= 12.5 Ib/gal

Sil

= initial wt of CaBr, (from Table 15.4) = 71.1 Ib

SE
S,
Sh

= initial wt

Wj
Wf

= initial water volume (from Table 15.4) = 0.784 bbl

W,

= added water volume

= 14.0 Ib/gal

= final wt

of CaCI2 (from Table 15.4) = 179.9 Ib

of CaBr2 (from Table 15.4) = 189.6 lb

= final wt of CaCI2 (from Table 15.4) = 149.3 lb

= initial water volume (from Table 15.4) = 0.712 bbl

nUudd water requirement

w a = vi -s;awf wi
Wa = 400[ (179'9) (OS7l2) -0.7841
( 149.3)

29.6 bb/

Quantity of CaBr2 added

s,

$---

s,,]

Si2SfI

sf2

Final volume

Vf = 400[=]149.3

482 bbl

Table 15.4: 95% CaBr,, 94% CaCI,, and Water Data for Brine
Density, 70F
PP9
11./
12.0
12.5

For One Barrel Brine

Pounds 95%,
(dry)
f .91
31.60
71.08

15-21

Pounds 94%
(dry) CaCI,
196.1 6
190.05
179.86

Barrels
Water
0.822
0.807
0.784

Table 15.4: 95% CaBr,, 94% CaCI,, and Water Data for Brine

The addition of large amounts of calcium bromide required extra fresh water to avoid precipitating the
calcium chloride. The addition of both the fresh water and the calcium bromide increased the total volume of the brine.
When brines are mixed (no dry salt addition), a straight ratio of densities can be used.
Example 15.10
Decreasing density of brine.
Decrease the density of 9.9 Ib/gal sodium chloride brine to 9.4 Ib/gal by adding fresh water
(8.33 Ib/gal). The initial brine volume is 150 bbls.
0;
Df
Da
Vj

= 9.9 Ib/gal
= 9.4 Ib/gal

= 8.33 Ib/gal
= 150 bbls

Volume of 8.33 Ib/gal water to be added

When density is increased by adding a heavier brine, the formula becomes:

Once the base fluid and the weighting agent have been selected, an additive package is needed to
condition the fluid to the individual needs of the well. The following list of additives is by no means
complete, but it does include the more important additives and the basic reasons for their use. Selec-

15-22

tion of additives should be on an as needed basis-do not add anything that isnt absolutely needed.
Additives may counteract each other and each one drives up the price of the fluid.
Material
ViSCoSitierS
Surfactants
Bridging Agents
pH control
Inhibitors
Bactericides

Use
Huid loss control, gas migration, suspending aid
Load fluid recovery aid, now emulsifiers
Fluid loss control
Clay damage control, corrosion control
Scale and corrosion control
Control bacteria counts

Because of the cost of workover fluids many are cleaned and recycled. This reclamation is particularly
common on the more expensive bromide brines.
When the required fluid density exceeds the upper limit of the density of the clear brines or when the
clear brines cannot be used because of environmental concerns or cost (cost of some of the zinc
brines may exceed several hundred dollars per barrel), solid weighting additives are suspended in the
workover fluid. The materials, usually carbonates, can add significant weight to a fluid.

Material

Specific Gravity

-CO3

2.

FeC03
BaC03
Fe2C03

3.85
4.43
5.24

Weight Increase Over Base Fluid

Ib/gal (from Patton)22
3.5

6.5
8.0
10.0

The biggest problems with the addition of the solids is (1) the difficulty in keeping the particles suspended, and (2) the possibility of formation permeability damage from a solids laden fluid. Both problems are serious but neither is insurmountable-just difficult. Addition of viscosifiers help suspend the
solids and permeability damage may be minimized by using a size graded material. Proportions of
fine, medium, and coarse granules have been shown to control fluid loss more rapidly than a single
size granule dispersion.
Viscosifiers are usually polymers and less commonly clay or other minerals that increase the viscosity
of the water. The increase in viscosity slows the rate of fluid leakoff into the matrix of the formation and
improves the ability of the fluid to hold particles in suspension. Polymers are compounds with repeating molecular units. Examples are guar, cellulose and various other synthetic and modified natural or
created base products. Concentration of the polymers in workover fluid ranges from 0.25 to over
5 lb/bbl. The polymer provide a useful service but most break down in time or are attacked by bacteria.
Surfactants are one of the largest families of workover and stimulation related chemicals. A surfactant
is a compound of water soluble group and an oil soluble group. Because of their unique structure, they
congregate at and modify the surface of liquid and gas (surface tension), immiscible liquids (interfacial
tension), and liquid and solid (contact angle). The tension values of liquids are the result of the molecules of that fluid exerting a mutual attraction for each other. The greater the attraction, the greater the
surface tension and the greater the work required to rupture the surface.
Material
Water

Normal Surface Tension

/2dyneskm

15-23

Mercury

487 dynes/cm

Surfactants have the ability to reduce the tensions by adsorbing at the interface. The modified interface then has a different character as the surfactant molecules orient themselves for the lowest
energy environment. Surface tension reductions of over 50% are possible for many systems.
Surfactants may be of hundreds of different chemical formulas but are usually divided into just four
types; sorted by electric charge.
Anionic- the water soluble end has a negative charge.
Cationic- the water soluble end has a positive charge.
Nonionic- the water soluble end has no charge.
Amphoteric- the charge on the water soluble end depends upon the pH or other factor.
The surfactants, regardless of charge, may reduce the surface tension, interfacial tension, or contact
angle. The difference is that some surfactants are attracted to and readily adsorb on certain surfaces-a trait that is used to advantage for well designed products and poses problems for indiscriminately
used surfactants. Additionally, not all surfactants are intended to reduce surface tension, some, such
as corrosion inhibitors, are intended to plate out. In general, with surface tension reducing products,
avoid the use of cationic surfactants in sandstones and anionic surfactants in limestones. In the special case of fluids that will undergo large losses to the formation, it has been shown that even nonionics absorb to some extent. Other systems such as alcohols may need to be considered. The reason
surfactants absorb to certain surfaces is governed mostly by charge attraction. In this aspect, the wettability of the formation plays an important role. Wettability is a descriptive term, but not highly exact,
of whether a solid surface is coated by or is receptive to oil or to water. The electric charge attraction
or repulsion may be one factor in wetting of a formation since silica surfaces are usually slightly negative and carbonates have slightly positive charges in the most common naturally occurring pH range.
If the surfactant is attracted to the rock by an opposite charge, the water soluble end is next to the surface and the oil soluble end is next to the fluid-leaving the surface oil wet. When strong attraction is
not evident, the surface may be water wet or indeterminate.
Although this explanation is reasonably sound, enough variations are known so that it is not held to be
exact. The wettability is very important, however. Its effect on the relative permeability of a fluid flowing through a rock can be very significant as permeability to oil may be cut in half by introduction and
binding of a water phase where none existed before. In spite of this data, as long as the water saturation is low, the preferential condition for oil flow is a water wet pore wall. This occurs because the
water layer occupies less of the pore throat area than an oil layer (molecular thickness).
Emulsion breakers or de-emulsifiers are chemicals that help reduce the film strength on the dispersed
or noncontinuous phase droplets and aid in the coalescence and coagulation of the small drops into
larger drops that will settle more easily. These chemicals are emulsion specific; they work best on a
particular emulsion and do not work at all on some emulsions. Because of their specific nature, they
must be suited for the exact emulsion problem in the well; a difficult job if the emulsion properties are
not known in advance.
Emulsion preventers or nonemulsifiers prevent the formation of emulsions. Again, they must be
selected based on the character of the water, oil, and solids encountered in the well. The need to run
compatibility tests on samples of well fluid that are as near as possible to the character of downhole
samples cannot be overstated. Samples change character with changes in temperature, pressure,
atmosphere and time.

15-24

An alternative to the surfactant based emulsion preventers and emulsion breakers are the alcohols
and some of the mutual solvents. These materials are effective over a much larger range of emulsions
than are the surfactants but are more expensive to use since they are typically in 1% to 10% concentration, while the surfactants are normally effective in the 50 to 10,000 ppm range. The selection of a
surfactant, mutual solvent or solvent should be based on performance and then on total cost of the
diluted system.
Use of any type of surfactant at a greater concentration than the test maximums should be strictly
avoided. Surfactant properties, particularly in the performance of demulsifier and nonemulsifier chemicals will change with concentration and the same materials that broke or prevented emulsions at one
concentration may actually create emulsions at another concentrations. This is true of both surfactants and the surfactant based mutual solvents.
When a specialized workover fluid is based on an emulsion, the surfactant emulsifier should provide a
stable emulsion without creating formation damage. These emulsified workover fluids exhibit much
higher viscosities than either of the base fluids. Unlike the base fluids, however, emulsions may be
thinned or completely broken by shear from the pumps or through tools. The physical character and
thermal stabilities of the emulsion must be known before use.
Fluid loss control during workovers is critical to maintain sufficient fluid head in the wellbore to control
the well. The viscosifiers, already discussed, are one method that is often useful in low permeabilities
where the dominant loss is through the matrix. In higher permeability situations, the polymer gels are
often highly concentrated and placed as pills of near solid material. These gel block treatments do not
usually fill the whole wellbore, but rather just the area of the leak-off and a few feet above and below
the zone. They are designed to hold leakoff to a minimum by their very large resistance to deformation
or flow. They cannot be used in most applications as wellbore plugs between areas of the wellbore
with large differential pressures. Breakers, either external or internal, or mechanical methods are
required for removal.
When the leakoff is through very highly porous (vuggy) zones or through open natural fractures, solid
particles such as those materials shown in the following paragraph are often needed.

Material
Naphthalene
benzoic
calcium carbonate
rock wool
organic resin
salt

I
I

Form
flakes
flakes
flakes, pellets
fibers
pellets
pellets

Removal Technique
I gas, solvent, some 011s
gas, solvent, some oils, hot water
acid
acid
solvents, oils
water, undersaturated brines & weak acids
I

Notice that the materials in the preceding paragraph have a solvent and that many of the lost circulation materials, LCMs, used in drilling are not included. Most drilling LCMs do not have solvents and
should not be used in workovers of wells with exposed pay zones.
For a pill of fluid loss control material to work, it must reduce the fluid lost from the well to a previously
set value. The performance of the fluid loss control, FLC, material must be stable for the life of the
workover or a procedure to recognize need and add pills must be available. Use of materials such as
salt or other readily soluble forms must take into consideration that few seals produced by FLC materials are ever leak proof and that even a minor rate of loss will eventually move a spacer fluid volume
through the pack and expose it to fresher fluid or other solvents that may follow. To offset the loss of
FLC material, periodic reapplication of the pills are common.
pH control is important where:

15-25

1. The clays are sensitive to a certain pH fluid.

2. Polymers may cross link or break the cross link with a shift in pH.
3. Corrosion may be significantly accelerated at a low pH
4. Scale may form at low or high pHs.

5. Soluble ions may precipitate.

6. Surfactant performance may be altered.
The pH is commonly adjusted by the addition of small amounts of a pH modifying chemical called a
buffer. The best pH range will depend on the overall requirements of the well.
Inhibitors to prevent scale deposition from waters, wax or asphaltene formation from oil or corrosion
from gases or water are normal additives to a workover fluid. Even when used, however, the inhibitors
are normally in the part per million range. Since most workover fluids are water based, scale inhibitors
and corrosion inhibitors are the most common. The need for either additive may be justified with the
help of scaling tendency programs or corrosion guidelines. The inhibitors are especially vulnerable to
interference from other additives and system performance must be checked before the system is
applied.
Bactericides are used wherever there are bacterial colonies in the base fluid, polymer or other food
source in the finished mixture, or when the treatment is designed to reduce the activity of an existing
downhole bacterial infestation. Bactericides may be of the common gluteraldehyde base, a calcium,
sodium, or potassium hypochlorite or other type. Rotation of bactericides is useful for best protection.
Failure to use bactericides where contamination is known or over about 60F surface temperatures
may render a gelled system useless in a few hours.
Additional additives such as oxygen scavengers, antisludgers, or other materials may be needed.
In spite of all the ifs, the workover fluid should be as simple as possible, and the additives-if any are
required--should be designed as a system.
Stabilizing the formation clay is one of requirements of any drilling, workover, or stimulation fluid. The
problem is determining when clay stabilization is needed. Simple tests that show clay swelling effect
on permeability by flowing one normal sodium chloride followed by fresh water are useless in predicting clay response unless those solutions are to be used in the well. A better test is to flow the workover fluid through a core from the zone of interest. Other information on clay audits effects are
contained in the section of formation damage.
Before the Job QIC
The physical selection of a workover fluid and its effect on the well must be tempered by how it can be
applied. Even the cleanest fluid, applied through silt filled lines and hoses or stored in tanks previously
used for mud, cement handing, or stimulation flowback can become damaging. Much of the formation
damage seen after a stimulation or workover is a result of our consistent refusal to clean up our act
and force the fluid handling companies to clean up theirs. We pay heavily for our folly in lost production and plugging of good wells.
The following checklist is a compilation of the thoughts of many authors and should be considered a
minimum.
1. Start with a good quality, low (quantity) suspended solids fluid.

15-26

2. Filter according to established specs.

3. Transport, mix, and store the workover fluid only in clean covered tanks.
4. When filtering, pump from the dirty fluid tank through the filter to a clean fluid tank. Do not cir-

culate back to the dirty tank.

5. Disperse and hydrate polymers to get the least fish eyes.

6. Use only clean breaking polymers.

7. Use only fresh, filtered crude or refined hydrocarbon when an oil workover fluid is needed. Do
not use oxidized crude.

8. Do not switch from mud to completion fluids by just cleaning the tanks. Flush out and clean
pumps, manifolds and flowlines.
9. Condition the mud in the wellbore before changeover to a completion fluid. Conditioning to
remove cuttings and high solids mud may take 24 to 48 hours or more, not just bottoms up.
10. Avoid painted tools.

11. Use pipe dope sparingly on the joint pin, not the box.

Fluid Filtration
Practical filtration means removing some of the undissolved solids from the water, acid and oils that
are used as completion and stimulation fluids. Even water that looks perfectly clear has some solids.
Waters that are murky, dark or outright muddy will have enormous amounts of solids and may be more
damaging than a properly made drilling mud.
Feeling for and against the use of filters are often severe.
1. I dont like to use filters, they plug up too rapidly,

- unnamed field foreman.

2. Producing formations are the most expensive and the most effective filters k n ~ w n . ~ ~ * ~ ~

The preceding two quotes illustrate the need for information about filtering. Much of the formation
damage that a completion engineer faces is nothing more than a self-inflicted wound.
Research on plugging by particles conducted by Tuttle and bark mar^^^ has found a direct correlation
between the dispersed solids content and permeability reduction when using high permeability cores.
This data, Figure 15.6, shows that water containing more than approximately 2 ppm of dispersed solids will significantly reduce permeability in a very short time. The data also showed that backflowing
and acid treating of the damaged plugs would restore only about 50% of the initial core permeability.
Other investigators have indicated similar findings.28 A field study conducted by Oliver2 showed that
when a number of compatible wells were treated with completion fluids filtered to 10 microns, the
wells had a 45% greater productivity than wells treated with fluids filtered to 25 microns. This is a significant increase in productivity caused simply by cleaning the injected fluid.
Unfiltered fluids, particularly those which have a large amount of solids, may cause severe damage
and may be responsible for many workover failures. There are several different methods for filtration
that will provide reasonably clean, inexpensive fluid at relatively high flow rates.

15-27

(Tuttle & Barkman, SPE)

Figure 15.6: The rate of permeability reduction of a 450 md

Cypress sandstone core when exposed to various source waters with entrained solids.

The filtration process is not as simple as ordering out a filter. Filter type, filter cycle life, amount of solids removed and rate are dependent upon filter material and the properties of the fluid being filtered.
The higher viscosities of the brines in use today create special problems for filters. The work of Glaze
and E ~ h o l pointed
s ~ ~ out several areas that must be considered:
1. Flow density (volume of solids per unit of fluid) is used to determine optimum fluid throughput

rate.
2. Viscosity slows filtration in indirect proportion to the amount of viscosity.

3. Filter life is affected, among other factors, by initial differential pressure and flow density.
4. Most filtration is a combination of cake and depth filtration. This means that the best filtration
occurs just before a filter plugs up.

5. Pressure differential on the filter should be as low initially and is expected to increase with
throughput.
Even a cleanly filtered brine, however, is still subject to contamination by picking up material on the
downstream side of the filter. This may include mud on the walls of tubulars, scale, rust, bacteria and
pipe dope. When cleaning a well prior to stimulation, two or three casing scraper runs may be needed
to remove drill mud solids, mill scale and corrosion particulates before chemical treatment. Storage
tanks that are utilized for fluid handling and all manifold and piping must also be cleaned. It is recommended that downhole tools should be used unpainted and made up using pipe dope that has been
applied very sparingly to the pin ends only.26 Doping the box of the connection will squeeze excess
pipe dope into the tubing and form a very low permeability plug over the face of the formation. The
pipe dope problem has been well known for many years, yet drilling and workover crews that have no
responsibility for well performance routinely heavily dope connections to prevent leaks and joint breakout problems. This excess dope is one of the main causes of formation damage in a new well.

15-28

The level of filtration is really two things: the size of particles that are removed and the percentage of
total particles that are removed. The first factor is influenced by the size of the particles passing the filter (the micron rating) and the second, called the beta rating, is a measure of both filter efficiency and
fluid cleanliness.
The first confusion point in filter selection is the so-called micron rating. Simply put, the micron measurement refers to the maximum size of particle that can pass through the filter. As with most simple
definitions, it is not that simple. There are two micron filtration ratings: absolute and nominal. Neither
rating is really defined by hard tests and remains the subject of debate. Absolute numbers usually
mean that the micron rating is the largest size hole in the filter, and the particles passing through must
be smaller than the hole. The problems with this nomenclature are in how those holes are measured.
Nominal numbers are not a measurement of the holes in the filter, but of the particle size passing
through the filter. The difference in these two meanings seem slight; however, it is not the end of the
definition or the influencing factors.
Flow rate, pressure and the amount of solids on the filter affect the filtration. Nominal filters are usually
wound string or woven materials. At high rates and pressures, the fibers can be forced aside and
much larger particles can pass through the filter. As the filter is used, solids buildup on the surface of
the filter. This bed of solids forces the fluid and solids to flow between the solids particles before it
can reach the filter. With time, the filter gradually becomes covered and becomes a more restrictive filter because of the smaller pore size. Thus, both nominal and absolute filters are least efficient when
new and most efficient with buildup of a bed of particles. Unfortunately, as the bed of particles builds,
the flow rate of fluid that can pass through the filter quickly diminishes and pressure increases. Soon,
a new filter must be used and the process starts over.
Out of the confusion on micron rating came the beta rating, a measure of how much solids are
removed by a filter.31 To get the beta rating, a dispersion of solids in water are flowed through a filter
at a set rate. The amount of solids in the water challenging the filter is compared with the amount of
solids in the water coming through the filter.
Influent Concentration
= Effluent Concentration
The Influent and Effluent concentrations refer to the upstream and downstream (respectively) particle populations or counts at a certain size particle. For example, if over the useful life of the filter,
100,000 particles of a size greater than or equal to or greater than 2 pm (microns), are trapped on the
filter and 100 particles of a size equal to or greater than 2 pm pass through the filter, then the beta
ratio of the filter for 2 micron, or B2, equals

B2 =

100,000
= 1,000
100

For every 1,000 particles of 12 pm that are inbound with the water, 1 particle gets through. Inversely,
999 particles are stopped, so the efficiency of the filter is 99.9%.

Bx- 1

YOCumulative removal efficiency = -x 100

BX

The beta ratio and the cumulative removal efficiency percent for various levels of filtration are given in
Figure 15.7, (West).32 A minimum beta ratio of 100 for 2 micron particles, p22100, is recommended for
stimulation and completion operations.

15-29

Rdation8hip between bota ratio and

percent cumulative nmoval effickncy
Cumulrtiw mwal

Barn nua
1
2

cfflcieny,%
0
50
75

5
10

80
90
95
98
98.67
99.00
99.90
99.94

20

(West, PEI)

Figure 15.7: The relationship of the beta factor to

the removal of solids from the filtrate.

The 2 micron level has been determined by several researcher^.^^^^^ Their tests show that particles
slightly larger than 2 microns can promote significant formation damage. Information available from
Hashemi and C a ~ t h i e nFigure
, ~ ~ 15.8, show the damage occurring from a variety of particle sizes in a
core flow experience. From this data, it can be easily seen that filtration to 2 micron or less should be
a stringent requirement. Even in the high permeability formations of the North Sea, Matthews, et al.,%
showed the need for filtration.

4
8
12
16
pore volumes injected

20

24

(Hashemi 8 Caothein, OGJ)

Figure 15.8: The effects of the level of filtration on the

permeability of a core.

As important as filtration is, it is only the first step in the solids removal process. For a full treating for
cleanup of a fluid during circulating, the equipment would include, in order: a shale shaker, settling
tank, desilter, centrifugal separator, and a set of final polishing filters. Other equipment might include a
diatomaceous earth filter between the centrifugal separator and the polishing filter.
The nominal cartridges are the most common polishing and filtering systems.1 They are cylindrical
tubes or socks of filter material that can block particles as the fluid flows through the filter. The element of the filter is usually made from polypropylene batting, string-wound polypropylene, graded density spun polyester or cotton cloth. Flow through the filter proceeds from the outside to the inside. The
particles that are stopped on the filter are blocked mainly on the outer surface with some small particles lodged within the matrix of the filter or carried completely through the filter. Phenolic impregnated

15-30

filters should not be used. The phenolic residue washes off the filters and severely damage the pores
of the rock. Cartridge filtration uses two filter pots or chambers with 50 micron filters feeding into a
third chamber with filters. With this system, the 50 micron filter pots can be pulled off line one at a time
to change filters without interrupting the filtration process until the 2 micron filters need to be
changed.35 Changing the filters at a certain psi drop is recommended for optimum filtration and flow
rate. An example limit, from Sparlin and Guidry, is to change polypropylene filters when the pressure
differential reaches 35 psi.
The performance of the cartridges are dependent on the surface area available to process flow. Thus,
cartridges which offer a large surface area such as the pleated cartridges, are much more durable and
have a longer life than the plain round cartridges. As previously stated, the filtration efficiency
increases with the buildup of solid particles trapped on the outside of the surface. The limit to this
increase in efficiency is when the filter fails and bypasses a large amount of the material into the
downstream ~ y s t e m Changing
. ~ ~ ~ ~filters
~ out at the right time is critical to the success of the filtering
operation.
The absolute filters can be used for acid filtration if the proper element is used. A series of tests by
Houchin, et al.,3 showed the best filter life was attained with polypropylene filters. These tests also
showed:
1. The pleated type (absolute) filters were more effective than depth type filters.
2. Mutual solvents in the acid extended the filter life of all elements but may cause some particle

bypass in 2 micron absolute systems.

3. Higher corrosion inhibitor loadings cause shorter filter life, although it appears that it is only the
inert solids in the inhibitor that are filtered out.
4. Filters may remove some surfactants - testing is required with the specific additives. (If the filter

removes the surfactant, the formation will probably remove it as well.)

5. Chemicals such as oil soluble resins and all diverts and fluid loss additives should be added
downstream of the filter.

6. Powdered additives and additives that have slow solubility should be mixed well in advance. The
insoluble material should be allowed to settle out.
The third type of filtration is diatomaceous earth or DE.38 Diatomaceous earth is the siliceous remains
of marine algae. Because of its consistent size, the DE material is built up on a dressing medium or
screen and DE filter aid fed in with the water to establish a continuous and very economical method of
fluid filtration. The DE units are very sensitive to pressure fluctuations and backwash and should be
run with a final cartridge filter downstream to remove the small DE particles that are often swept
through with the filtered fluid. Large frame DE filters are available that can filter at reasonably high
treatment rates with a minimum of continuous maintenance.
In a field and laboratory work, Houchin, et a1.,36p37rates the various types of filtration system and comments on the level of filtration and its importance to prevention of formation damage. These authors
quote a level of filtration based on the average pore throat diameter with regard to the type of fluid
being flowed. They also note that nominal and absolute cartridge ratings cannot be compared: a new
10 micron absolute filter can remove more solids and finer solids than some 2 micron nominal filters.
One solution to this rating problem is to always specify a beta rating when ordering filters.
Particles of a size 116 to 112 the size of the average pore throat diameter should be removed by settling, flocculation or screening to minimize surface restrictions of the pores.2 The action of fine parti-

15-31

cles in brines to form a double charged layer and the resultant electric charged particle clumping
makes filtration of the particles easier. Surfactant addition disperses the particles and make filtering
less efficient. Houchin recommends a filtration level of:

Level of filtration = Avg Pore Throat Diameter x 0.20

The minimum filter size recommended is 2 micron. Although 0.5 micron filters are available, their use
should be limited to special applications, very sensitive formations, and removal of bacteria.
Houchin, et al., point out that the DE filters are the most cost effective devices for brine filtration
projects. However, DE filters cannot be used with acid stimulation fluids or some gelled brines.
When polymer gelled fluids are to be used, fine filtration of the fluid should take place before the gel is
added. A course filter should be in the downstream line to remove the microgals that result from
incomplete hydration of the polymer structure. In most field operations, a shear device is used to
improve the dispersion and the viscosity of gelled fluids. When gelled fluids are filtered, the level of filtration can generally not be finer than 10 microns.
Cleaning fluids in tanks requires flow from the dirty tank, through a filter and into a clean tank. Circulating from a dirty tank through a filter and back into the dirty tank cannot satisfactorily clean the fluid.
Field Testing and Measurement of Clean

There are few established field tests for estimating fluid cleanliness. Most rapid measurements use
NTUs (National Turbidity Units). This test involves shining a light of known intensity through a set
diameter glass tube filled with the water and measuring how much light is received. Water color and
iron in solution may affect the test. A better method, although not practical for many field jobs are the
particle analyzers or filter paper tests.
Application

Throughout any workover operation, the criteria of well control must be stressed.
The pressures encountered in a formation are usually categorized as low pressure, normal pressure,
or high or abnormally pressure. Normal pressure is the pressure exerted at any depth by a full column
(to the surface) of saturated NaCl water, a gradient of 0.47 psi/ft. Although high pressures are more
difficult to handle, the most problems occur with normally pressured and slightly low pressure wells.
There are three methods of workovers that may be used, provided the proper well conditions are satisfied: underbalance, neutral and overbalanced. Underbalanced workovers do not totally control the
formation pressure, thus some inflow is expected. This technique is only used in those wells (almost
always under pressured) that will not flow to the surface, or where a minimum of surface equipment
(lubricator) will withstand the pressure during the operation. The technique .has enormous advantages
since none of the workover fluid enters the zone. In very low pressure zones, mechanical isolation is
often required in combination with a very light weight fluid to prevent excessive fluid entry and formation damage.
In balanced workovers, the workover fluid weight is matched as closely as possible to the formation
pore pressure. Advantages are minimum fluid entry and potential damage. To use the technique
requires a very accurate knowledge of the pressure in the zone. Tripping must be done very carefully
to avoid swabbing the well.
Overbalanced workovers use a fluid that exerts a higher pressure than the pore fluid. Although this is
the most common method, it can be the most damaging since it permits the entry of the workover fluids into the formation. Significantly higher weights of fluids should be avoided for two reasons: a high
loss of fluid through the matrix and the possibility of fracturing the formation. Formation fracturing may

15-32

occur any time the pressure exerted by the fluid exceeds the fracture initiation pressure of an exposed
zone.
Kill String Completions

Deep, high pressure gas wells are a challenge to complete since they may often have trace to considerable amounts of H2S, CO2 and high chloride water. In addition to high bottomhole pressure, if the
formations are hot, it increases the problems involved in both corrosion and in killing the wells when a
problem is presented. See the chapter on corrosion for more information.
One way of handling a problem with this type of operation is to use a dual string completion. In this situation, a small diameter (usually 1 in.) string is set through the packer into a kill block immediately
above a production packer. A schematic of this operation is illustrated in Figure 15.9. This type operation can be used in both tubingless completions where the tubing is completely cemented in and other
operations.

Figure 15.9: A small diameter kill line run

inside larger tubing.
Returning Wells to Operation

Returning wells to production or injection after a workover is usually not an involved process, if the
workover was designed and applied in a way that minimizes formation damage.
In a well on artificial lift, the technique is no more involved than running in with the pump and placing
the well on production. A clean up period is usually expected during which time the load fluid should
be mostly recovered and hydrocarbon flow initiated. The load fluid is rarely all recovered--trapping in
pores of the formation or blowing back as a mist with gas often accounts for a substantial amount of
volume.
In flowing or gas lift wells, an assist by jetting or swabbing is often needed. These operations lower the
bottomhole wellbore pressure, creating an inward pressure differential. Swabbing is a wireline operation in which a swab cup apparatus, Figure 15.1 0, is dragged upward in the tubing at high speeds. The
fluid ahead of the swab is driven up the wellbore as a piston, momentarily reducing the hydrostatic
weight of the column of fluid. At the top of the swab travel, the swab is dropped through the standing
fluid to the starting point and the cycle is repeated. Swabbing on a well for 2 days or more is not
uncommon when the loss of fluid is severe.
Jetting fluid from a well is usually accomplished with a coil tubing unit and nitrogen. The coil tubing is
run to a point, usually somewhere above the zone so that an underbalance can be created and the
nitrogen is flowed down the coiled tubing and up the coiled tubinghbing annulus. This is a temporary
form of gas lift. In zones sensitive to gas (oil reservoirs above the bubble point), placing the end of the

15-33

Figure 15.10: A sketch of a swab cup unit.

tubing several hundred feet above the perfs can effectively utilize the technique without endangering
the oil zone.

Workover References
1. Adams, N.: Kicks Give Clear Warning Signs, Oil & Gas J. (Oct. 15, 1979), pp. 132-142.

2. Adams, N.: Pressure-Control Procedures During Workover Differ From Drilling, Oil & Gas J.
(Aug. 10, 1981), p. 119-126.
3. Adams, N.: Killing a Producing Well, Oil and Gas J. (Aug. 17, 1981) p. 115.

4. Adams, N.: What to Remember About Bullheading, World Oil, (March 1988), p. 115
5. Adams, N.: Deep Waters Pose Unique Well Kick Problems, Pet. Eng. Int,, (May 1977), p. 25.

6. Adams, N.: Conventional Rigs, Snubbing Units Handle a Variety of Workover Jobs, Oil & Gas
J., pp. 75-78.
7. Adams, N.: Stripping, Snubbing, Hot Tap-Last Resorts in Well Control, Oil & Gas J. (Mar. 10,
1980), pp. 100-106
8. Adams, N.: Choke Devices, Mud System Aid Well Control, Oil and Gas J., (Oct. 12, 1981),
p. 91.
9. Lapeyrouse, N. J.: Formulas and Calculations for Drilling, Production and Workovers, Gulf
Publishing Co., Houston, 1992.
10. Hall, B. E.: Workover Fluids, Part 1,I World Oil (May, 1986), pp. 111-114.

11. Hall, B. E.: Workover Fluids, Part 2, World Oil (June, 1986), pp. 64-67.

15-34

12. Hall, B. E.: Workover Fluids, Part 3, World Oil (July, 1986), pp. 65-68.
13. Hall, B. E.: Workover Fluids, Part 4, World Oil (Oct. 1986), pp. 61-63.
14. Hall, B. E.: Workover Fluids, Part 5,World Oil (Dec., 1986), pp. 49-50.
15. Millhone, R. S.: Completion Fluids for Maximizing Productivity State-of-the-Art, J. Pet. Tech
(Jan. 1983), pp. 47-55.

16. Adams, N.: How to Use Fluids to Best Advantage, Oil & Gas J. (Nov. 9, 1981), p. 254, 259,
261, 262, 267, 269, 270, 275.
17. Bleakley, W. B.: Clear Completion and Workover Fluids - What They Are, What theyll Do, Pet.
Eng. Int. (Aug. 1980) 19-22.
18. Place, J., Paul, J. R., Sigalas, A.: High Density Clear Fluids for Completions and Workovers,
Paper EUR 261, presented at the Eastern Offshore Petroleum Conference, London, Oct. 21-24,
1980.
19. Stauffer, R. J.: Calcium Bromide Based Completion Fluids, Paper SPE 5774, presented at the
European Spring Mtg. Amsterdam, April 1976.
20. Spies, R. J., Himmatramka, A. K., Smith, J. R., Thomas, D. C.: Field, Experience Utilizing High
Density Brines as Completion Fluids, SPE 9425, presented at the 55th Annual Mtg., Dallas,
Sept. 21-24, 1980.
21. Conners, J. H., Bruton, J. R.: Use of Clear Brine Completion Fluids as Drill-in Fluids, SPE
8223, presented at the 54th Annual Mtg., Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26, 1979.
22. Patton, L. D., Abbott, W. A.: Considerations for Selecting Well Servicing Fluids, Pet. Eng. Int.
(Feb. 1980), p. 50, 52, 56.
23. Pardo, C. W., Andrus, T. S., Bibb, B.E., Bibb, S. E.: Foam Recompletions of High-Angle, Low
Pressure Dry Gas Wells, Offshore Lousiana, SPE 18844, Prod. Oper. Symp. Okla. City,
March 12-14, 1989.
24. Adams, N.: How to Control Differential Sticking, Pet. Eng. Int., (Oct 1977), p. 40.

References on Filtration
25. Sparlin, D. D.: Advances in Well Completion Technology, JPT, (Jan. 1982), p. 17-18.
26. Maly, G. P.: Close Attention to the Smallest Job Details Vital for Minimizing Formation Damage,
SPE 5702, Formation Damage Symposium, Houston, Jan. 29-30, 1976.
27. Tuttle, R. N., Barkman, J. H.: New Nondamaging and Acid-Degradable Drilling and Completion
Fluids, JPT, (Nov. 1974), pp. 1221-1226.
28. Contu, L. A., Nall, A. E.: Field Development of D.E. and Cartridge Filters for CompletionNVorkover Fluid Filtration, SPE 16933, 62nd Fall Meeting, Dallas, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
29. Oliver, D. A.: Improved Completion Practices Yield High Productivity Wells, Pet. Eng. Int., (April
1981) 23-28.

15-35

30. Glaze, 0.H., Echols, J. B.: Filtering Oil Field Brines Is Not that Simple, World Oil, (Oct. 1984),
pp. 85-88.
31. Ammerer, N. H., Jewell, J. E., Hashemi, R.: Completion Fluids: A Generic Overview, Pall Well
Technology, also published in Drilling (May, June, Aug. 1983).
32. West, R. D.: Proper Filtration Cartridges Improve Particle Removal, Pet. Eng. Int. (Feb. 1988),
pp. 36-42.
33. Hashemi, R., Caothien, S.: Benefits of Solids Filtration Evaluated, Oil and Gas J, (Jan. 27,
1986).
34. Matthews, R. R., Tunal, T., Mehdizdeh, P.: Evaluation of Seawater Filtration Systems for North
Sea Application, JPT (May 1985), 843-850.
35. Sparlin, D., Guidry, J. P.: Study of Filters Used for Filtering Workover Fluids, SPE 7005, Formation Damage Symposium, Lafayette, Feb. 15-16, 1978.
36. Houchin, L. R., Dunlap, D. D., Hutchinson: Formation Damage During Gravel-Pack Completions, SPE 17166, Formation Sand Control Symposium, Bakersfield, Feb. 8-9, 1988.
37. Houchin, L. R., Dunlap, D. D., Hudson, L. M.: Field Mixing and Filtration of Acid Stimulation Fluids, OTC 5244, 18th OTC, Houston, May 5-8, 1986.
38. Barron, W. C., Young, J. A., Munson, R. E.: New Concept - High Density Brine Filtration Using a
Diatomaceous Earth Filtration System, SPE 10648, Formation Damage Symposium, Lafayette,
March 24-25, 1982.
39. Skalle, P., Podio, A. L.: Trends Extracted from 1200 Gulf Coast Blowouts During 1960-1996,
World Oil, pp. 67-72, June 1998.

15-36

Chapter 16: High Temperature, High Pressure

Completions
High temperature, high pressure (HTHP) completions represent one of the most difficult frontiers for
the petroleum industry. Most of the available completions technology begins to fail at approximately
250F. Pressure threshold for HTHP wells is harder to define with some sources referencing a total
pressure, while other engineers think of any pressure over a gradient of over 0.46 psi/ft as a high
pressure well. Industry experience with HTHP completions has been checkered by both success and
failure. In the final analysis, HTHP wells are often an expensive learning process. For more information on HTHP completions, the reader is referred to World Oils High Pressure Well Completions
Handbook (1978) by Snyder and Suman.
True high temperature, high pressure wells account for only a few percent of the yearly well total, yet
a single mistake or failure in these wells can easily cost in excess of a million dollars. The low well frequency and the high cost of both wells and workovers make learning difficult. Most engineers may
only be exposed to a handful of HTHP wells in their careers.
High formation fluid pressures are usually caused by one of two conditions. The most common source
of high pressures, especially geologic areas with rapid sediment accumulation and seal forming conditions (marine deposited shales), are entrapment of a formation by impermeable shales soon after the
formation is filled by hydrocarbons. The fluids in the closed cell prevent further compaction of the formation by supporting most of the overburden load. Porosity reduction and the related increase in
bonding strength increase, common with increasing depth due to weight of sediments, is stopped in
some cases because formation water volume and movement is limited. Stopping compaction preserves porosity. High pressure zones are often associated by high formation porosity, as shown by the
porosity recording with depth for a high pressure zone in Figure 1 The other common contribution to
development of high formation pressure is lifting a formation to a shallower level by a salt dome movement or geologic thrusting.

.*

In general; buried formations should have fluid pressures that do not exceed the weight of the overburden, a value of about 1 psi/ft. This is the normal upper limit. Overburden gradient, however, can
vary widely from place to place. Even in a single well, the overburden may change rapidly in response
to lighter weight sediments or supporting arches in the structure of the formations.
The depth at which high pressure formations are found may vary from over 20,000 ft (6,100 m) to less
than 2,000 ft (610 m). This depth insensitivity makes drilling in these areas difficult. Warning signs that
a high pressure formation is being penetrated may include unexplained increase in porosity, a change
(usually an increase) in drilling rate, a change in temperature gradient, long, thin cuttings, and the
presence of a dense sealing formation. Other means of detection include seismic data (with proper
interpretati~n),~
experience in the area, geologic markers, and after-the-fact detection such as kicks
and logging.
In order to successfully drill any formation, two pieces of pressure information are needed: the pore
pressure and the formation fracture breakdown pressure. For conventional drilling, the mud weight
must exert enough pressure to control the pore pressure while staying below the fracturing pressure.
In some high pressure formations, particularly those with poor formation consolidation and in highly
deviated wells, the working window between pore pressure and fracture pressure may be very small.
In very unusual cases where the window between pore pressure and fracture pressure is too small for
normal operations, special procedures such as underbalanced drilling or drilling without returns may
be an option. Both procedures are higher risk than normal drilling practices.
The selection of the number of casing strings for the well is handled in the same manner described in
Chapter 2. When the mud weight to control one zone will nearly break down (fracture) another zone,
another casing string or liner must be run to protect or isolate the upper zone. There is usually a safety

16-1

'
I
2
Y

?6-

810

12

14

161

I
10

20

30

40

50

60

'

Poroslty, 4'

Figure 16.1: Porosity increase in both the sealing shale and

the reservoir rock in a high pressure zone.

factor set on the mud weight difference between pore pressure and fracture breakdown that is equal to
the swab effect. An example of a plot of mud weight versus true vertical depth is shown in Figure 2.
The depth at which increasing mud weight, needed to control pore pressure in deeper zones, breaks
down upper zones is indicated by the intersection of the vertical dashed lines (drawn from the mud
weight) with the calculated fracture gradient.4
High temperatures are often associated with high pressure formations merely because of the depth at
which both are found. In other cases, geothermal or volcanic activity or proximity may raise the geothermal gradient. In high temperature areas such as the U.S. Gulf Coast, maximum temperature gradients may approach 2F per 100 ft (3.6OC per 100 m). The normal gradient is 1OF per 100 ft (1.8"C per
100 m).
Abnormal pressure cells, sealed with thick caprocks may not generate heat, but they are effective
insulators, keeping heat from being dispersed. Salt domes, another cause of high pressures, are
excellent insulators.
Obtaining accurate formation temperature is difficult. Circulating mud temperatures, even measured at
bottomhole, may be 30" to over 50" below maximum formation temperature in hotter zones. Estimation of temperature requires multiple runs on shut-in wells. The length of shut-in time depends on temperature and how long the well had been c i r c ~ l a t e d . ~

Completions Operations
The conventional approach to HTHP wellheads is to select the components so that they are rated to
working pressures and temperatures equal or greater than those expected on the well.' The problem
with this philosophy is that sometimes the components react together in ways never imagined at low
pressures and temperatures. Where possible, it is better to select wellheads and other equipment
based on system ratings and tests.

16-2

--.

Figure 16.2: Mud weight increase with depth and the window
between pore pressure and fracture gradient. The window narrows with increasing depth.

The idea behind wellhead design is to design for the worst possible case. The worst case is usually
(but not always) the full formation pressure, less a dry gas gradient. Special cases may include
extreme high pressure salt water formations, acids, thermal stimulation, or corrosive gases.
The first casing head or spool must handle pressures produced by any zones that are drilled or completed before the next full string is run and cemented. The uppermost head must handle the highest
pressures produced during drilling, completing or production. The wellhead components are stacked
with pressure ratings increasing by one full step (i.e., 3,000 psi to 5,000 psi to 10,000 psi) when
needed. As pressure ratings are increased, the lower pressure components below must be isolated
from the higher pressure. On HTHP wells, flanged connections are the norm. In most completions, a
profile is included in the top of the tubing that allows setting a plug to seal off pressure when a surface
valve must be changed. The plug must have an equalizing feature that allows pressure equalization
before the plug is released.
Materials for components and seals are selected for both pressure and temperature criteria, but corrosion protection is the overriding consideration. Materials are specified by API spec 6A and by NACE
standard MR-01-75 for sour gas (H2S) service. Seals are almost always metal to metal.
High temperature, high pressure formations are often a combination of the worst problems involved in
both high pressure completions and high temperature completions. When these two problem areas
act in concert, the failure rate is often severe.
One of the major problems in HTHP wells is increased corrosion and erosion/corrosion. Increased corrosion may be due to CO2 or, more likely, to a variety of problems caused by H2S. Completions in high

16-3

temperature, high pressure sour gas wells are among the most difficult operations in the completions
field. H2S is not only severely corrosive, it is also a poisonous gas which must be prevented from
uncontrolled venting into the atmosphere. In the case of H2S effect on equipment, installation of materials known to be resistant to stress sulfide cracking is the most practical method of preventing failure.
Erosion may be triggered by high pressure gas flow, liquid flow, droplets, bubbles, or solids.
Casing grades for HTHP wells are selected by the same process as convention wells: production and
completion requirements, plus: burst, collapse, tensile, corrosion, and cost. Because of the increased
cost of strings designed for worst possible cases, some operators may include cement support in
pressure protection and may include buoyancy in tensile calculations. While the use of buoyancy is
feasible, especially since high pressure zones are dependent on full mud columns, assuming that
cement support is always available will lead to problems. Collapse and burst safety factors may
increase slightly in HTHP wells, especially where corrosion is a problem.
In terms of application, the number of casing grades and weights on location should be minimized.
This, in turn, minimizes the chances of placing an unsuitable joint in the wrong place in the casing
string.
With HTHP wells, selection of a premium connection is a must. The high tension loads in deep wells
can often pull apart API connections. With API connections, the connection is often weaker than the
body strength.
Cement blends for HTHP wells will usually focus on an efficient retarder system, often in a weighted
cement system. The slurry must remain pumpable throughout the job and help remove gelled mud
from the annulus. After setting, the cement must not deteriorate with time. Weighting agents include
barite (BaS04), iron compounds, and sand. Other processes such as combining blast furnace slag
with drilling mud to set the mud in the annulus (mud-to-cement techniques) may produce a heavy
cement material but questions have been raised about cracking and ~ t r e n g t h . ~ , ~
Because liners are a common completion on HTHP wells, special considerations must be given to
liner cementing, especially where clearances are marginal (or less) by conventional cementing guidelines. Additional problems may be created by thick mud cakes and gas cutting of the cement by high
pressure gas as the cement sets and hydrostatic weight is lost. Typical liner clearances are shown in
the following data for several common liner applications.'

Liner Size
(inches)

Hole Size
(inches)

Casing
"pper
(inches)

Clearance
(inches)

Completion mechanics such as packer and tubing selection are dependent on controlling forces and
tubing movement as the steel tubulars respond to the influences of pressure and heat. Most of the
information is covered in Chapter 4 and the section on thermal completions in Chapter 8.

16-4

Brines
The Industry HTHP experience with brines is documented, but well understood in only a few cases. A
number of problems may occur with brine type and density range, corrosion behavior, temperature
effects, dilution and damage effects (scale, mineraVfluid reactions, etc.).
Calcium carbonate development in calcium brines at 3OO0F, indicates that use of calcium-complexed
brines or elimination of the calcium are the only reliable ways to control scale development. Inhibitors
are only effective in low concentration calcium brines.
Crystallization temperatures (salt dropout or precipitation at low temperatures) become important in
winter storage, as the brine is circulated past the mud line in offshore wells in deep water or in permafrost areas.
One of the biggest needs in the area of HTHP brine application is an effective fluid loss additive for
temperatures above 300F. Starch and most polymers break down below or at this temperature. Carbonate dispersions depend on these viscosifiers for suspension. Organic resins have an upper temperature limit of 230F to 270F. Higher temperature polymers are available, such as some
polyacrylamides; however, the formation damage from these nonbreaking polymers can be severe.
Typical brines for high pressure wells are shown in the following table. Remember that brines are solutions of salts in water. The amount of salt that will dissolve is related to the type of salt and the temperature of the fluid. Salt mixed to the saturation point at surface temperature will be undersaturated
downhole (except for inverse solubility). A problem with salt drop out can occur; however, when either
permafrost formations or sea floor temperatures reduce brine temperatures below the temperature
needed to keep all the salt in solution. In these cases, solid salt plugs can form in the tubing. Problems
may also arise with sudden pressure changes (pressure reductions) that will cause sudden precipitation of a super saturated solutions. Both of these causes have produced salt plugs in tubing that
required wash out operations with coiled tubing. Other, less frequent causes of "salting out" or precipitation in brines include gas evolution during production or gas percolation. Gas expansion cools the
surroundings.

Brine Type
Sodium Ghloride
Calcium Chloride
Calcium Bromide
CaCI2 CaBr2
ZnBr2 - CaBr2

Wt. Range
(I blgal)

- 10
8.33- 11.3
8.33 - i1.7
10.9 - 16.4
15 - 19.2'
8.3

Wt. Range
(kg/l)
1-1.2

1-1.35
1-1.4
1.3- 1.97
1.a 2.3

Besides brin weight d muds have often been used as kill or completion fluids, although formation
permeability damage from the fluid is usually severe. Newer muds with graded calcium carbonate
blends are showing very good performance and minimal formation permeability damage. The problems with muds is that many of the polymer and starch viscosifiers begin to break down at temperatures over about 350F (1 77C).

Stimulation
Problems with deep, hot or high pressure wells also affect stimulation attempts. In a Chevron report
on the Norphlet core tests (400F; 20,000 ft; 10,000 psi) for the Gulf of Mexico, acidizing for removal
of some forms of formation damage was possible with blends of HF (hydrofluoric) and acetic.8 Other
work, published and unpublished, document failures due to corrosion, especially with HCI at high temperatures (t > 250F). Corrosion inhibitors and inhibitor aids (usually metal salts) are necessary. Protection time at high temperatures is short.

16-5

Fracturing in the HTHP reservoirs is on a case-by-case review. Frequently, even a small frac, though
expensive because of the required high strength proppants, can produce very good production
improvement. Fracs are an excellent tool for bypassing damage. Because of the conductivity requirements in most high capacity wells, tip-screenout designs should be considered for fracturing.

Formation Damage
The types of formation damage from HTHP wells may not be much different than other wells, but the
level of severity may be much greater due to the large amount of produced fluid cooling. Scales and
paraffins are obvious problem areas, particularly on start-up until temperature differentials stabilize.
Development and infield well design must be based on what is learned in discovery and confirmation
wells. In this manner, early problems in these areas can help with early solutions. Both scale and paraffin precipitation will change as the reservoir is depleted. Completions that have enough flexibility to
handle changing needs will be more economical over the productive life of the field.
Because of the limitations of acids in the HTHP wells, formation damage is very often difficult to
remove. Inhibition and damage bypass designs become very important. The best methods of preventing, removing, or bypassing formation damage begin with a knowledge of what is causing the formation damage. Most HTHP formation damage begins with the drilling and completion fluids and
practices and may often be a function of a very conservative attitude. Excessive mud weights and solids loaded fluids are often severely damaging. If the drilling mud overbalance, for example, is more
than about 1100 psi over the pore pressure, the DST (drill stem test) of the well will tend to show a dry
hole, even in a productive zone. The best approach, especially in a HTHP well, is the informed
approach. Money spent to collect and analyze early pressure and temperature data can pay a very
good return in selecting the right mud weights and additives. Specific areas to examine to reduce formation damage include:
1. Limit the overbalance to no more than 300 to 500 psi in highest productivity zones.
2. Avoid fracturing the rock with mud.

3. Avoid large fluid losses, even clear brines, to the formation.

4. Clean the well up as soon as possible.

5. Look for signs of brittle formation failure such as accumulation of wellbore fill. The wellbore must

be kept clear.
6. Keep liquids from accumulating in the wellbore. Liquid buildup reduces production by holding a

backpressure on the formation and may create water blocks.

7. Test for and stop zone-to-zone crossflow.
8. Use compatible mud sweeps and mud cake removal steps prior to the cement job. These steps,

along with pipe centralization and movement, can help eliminate mud channels and water leaks.
9. Consider damage bypass mechanisms such as extreme overbalance surging or perforating and
short fractures if formation damage is more than a few inches beyond the formation face.
10. Evaluate the performance of each step in the completion to decide on changes to help optimize
the well.

Chemical treating (nonacid) is one possibility in these wells. A number of EDTA, DTPA and other proprietary chemicals have been advanced and tested for scale removal. Calcium sulfate removal is well
tested, while barium sulfate removal is starting to show promise. Solvents are also frequently useful.

16-6

Paraffin and asphaltene removal, for example, is a matter of solvency, heat and agitation. In general,
xylene is the best chemical from a solvent removal standpoint. Other materials such as kerosene (not
diesel) may be effective and are more environmentally friendly.
Well designs that minimize sudden pressure drops in the string also minimize places for scale and
paraffin to form.

Well Design
In the area of well completions, HTHP design criteria should focus on:
1. overall feasibility of drilling and completion techniques with available equipment, (This includes

the ability to handle solids at the higher flow rates and pressures.)
2. feasibility of tieback operations versus the use of consistent tubular size,
3. lifetime of producing wells and behavior during depletion (casing corrosion, collapse, etc.),
4. prevention of incidental charging of upper permeable zones by cross flow (through poor cement

isolation),
5. condensate behavior during production (location of the condensate dropout point during production of gas),
6. subsurface safety valve size, depth and design,

7. wellhead and tree layout and design primary interest is ease of intervention and safety.

Christmas tree designs should include the following considerations:

1. maximum wellhead flowing temperature,
2. shut-in wellhead pressure,

3. maximum wellhead pressure,

4. production outlets, including inhibitor injection access,
5. kill and ventline outlets,
6. swab valve access (wireline intervention),

7. profiles at the top of tubing to allow valve changes in wellheads.

Completions Equipment
Mobils completions in the Norphlet formation of the Mobile Bay (Mary Ann and Mobile 823 Fields) are
challenging because of depth (>20,000 ft), temperature (4OO0F), pressures (10,000 to 20,000 psi) and
gas composition (8.5% H2S and 3.5% CO2). A number of conclusions are available from Mobils
designsg
1. A single CRA string with all CRA (Chemically Resistant Alloy) Components has proven satisfactory. Mobil uses C-276, a nickel-based alloy with excellent high temperature corrosion resis-

16-7

tance. Another cheaper nickel-based alloy, G-50, has been successfully used in the lowest
stressed sections of the tubing string.
Galling of the CRA tubing is eliminated by sand blasting an anchor pattern onto the thread and
box. The blasting smooths rough edges and provides a textured surface to retain pipe dope.
Spray molybdenum and a high temperature pipe dope compound are applied to the clean, dry
thread. Makeup is at 8 to 12 RPM until the joint is shouldered.
Proper handling of the tubing is critical. Pipe is racked and banded during storing and shipping
so that there is no metal contact between the tubes. The threads are protected with nonmetal,
premium thread caps. At the rig, the tubing is handled with nylon slings and rubber-lined pickup
and tear down equipment. The elevators are designed for maximum die contact and minimum
penetration. Handling damage, beyond a set level of maximum pipe body penetration is cause
for rejection.

2. The tubing hanger, tree and production chokes are all C-276,alloy 625,718 or other. A manual
lower block master valve, a hydraulically actuated upper master valve, a thermal well flange and
a manual crown valve are used in the head. Tree valves are manufactured with all metal single
slab gates and seats. The kill side was fitted with a check valve to accommodate continuous
injection of corrosion inhibitor across the tree for protection downstream of the choke. The corrosion inhibitor injection point had to be moved downstream of the choke, however, because of
foaming of the corrosion inhibitor.
The most successful seals were elastically deformed metal-to-metal. Both plastically deformed
metal-to-metal and elastomeric seals on the tubing layer proved unsatisfactory. The elastically
deformed metal-to-metal seals outperformed the other seals during extreme pressure and temperature cycling. Common wellhead temperatures may range to 350F.
Mobil reports frequent failures in production chokes. The failure of the choke needle appears to
be mechanical but may be influenced by corrosion.
3. After failures with subsurface safety valves manufactured from Alloy 71 8,the valves were
switched to C-276.The SCSSVs, installed at a depth of 300 ft, are tubing retrievable flapper
models. The outer hydraulic fluid control line is Alloy 825.A synthetic hydraulic fluid is preferred
to organic fluid (organic fluid was coked by high temperatures).
4. A PBR (polished bore receptacle) provides annular seal. The PBR is C-276.No problems have

been encountered with these units. The principle behind Mobils PBR is to maintain the tubing
seals in a static position during all routine operating and producing conditions. The tubing is
landed on the load shoulder with sufficient weight to prevent movement of the seals during cold
(shut-in) conditions. The primary production seals are positioned sufficiently deep into the PBR
to accommodate any upward seal movement that may occur during kill or stimulation operations.
5. Perforating was the most unreliable and troublesome of all completion operations. Both wireline
and TCP (tubing conveyed perforating) have been used. Major problems have been with nondetonation (additional runs) and low order detonation (burst gun bodies requiring rig fishing).

6. Mobil requires tight QNQC and Inventory Control on all components. A comprehensive product
specification is prepared for each completion component covering details from dimensions and
tolerances to metallurgy and strengths. Inspections including basic visual, nondestructive and
sometimes destructive testing are required at every step.

Subsurface Safety Valves

Surface-controlled subsurface safety valves or SCSSSVs are required in most offshore and many
environmentally sensitive locations. The designs for high temperature, high pressure completions may

16-8

have differences in comparison to the regular SCSSSVs. In high temperature, high pressure completions, the seal area is one of the predominant differences in the valve systems. The metal-to-metal
seals offered by several companies have replaced the elastomer seals for either low pressure or high
pressure applications. The most common SCSSSVs are the flapper-type subsurface safety valves.
Other valves have been used with moderate degrees of success. In an early study, Amoco cited a
lower failure rate of flapper-type valves than ball valves.1 This study has been backed up by a major
study by SINTEF. The conclusions of this report in all wells in the database which were taken from
the North Sea fields reached two conclusions:
1. Tubing retrievable valves are significantly more reliable than wireline retrievable valves.

2. Flapper valves are more reliable than ball valves.

The reliability of tubing retrievable subsurface safety valves is influenced by several

Most
of these are due to removal of a few external factors that affect wireline retrievable valves. A tubing
retrievable valve does not depend upon wireline or TFL (through flowline) operation to ensure that it is
mechanically locked in place. The tubing retrievable valve is in the well at all times and is less likely to
have been removed for repair or workover of the well. The wireline retrievable valves must be latched
into an appropriate landing nipple that is placed in the tubing string. This may incorporate several seal
bores. Malfunction of the external packing in these seals is one of the common reasons for retrievable
valve failure.
The type of valve, either flapper or ball valve, can make a difference, as pointed out in the SINTEF
study. The flapper valves have the advantage of being opened by pressure on the topside when
equalizing is needed. Ball valves, however, must be opened and closed by piston action. Hence, when
an opening system is not available or is not operating in the ball valve, the string may have to be
pulled to repair the problem.
A number of pressure equalizing features are available on both flapper and ball valves from flow
mazes to rather complicated piston arrangement^.'^^^^ In general, the simpler the pressure equalizing
mechanism, the more reliable it will be.
Some arguments have arisen over whether the safety valves are a safety asset or a safety liability.I7
The thinking in this particular instance is that if the valves fail frequently, it may be better to have a
completion without a subsurface safety valve. A study of this type was undertaken in the Kuparuk field
in Alaska, where it was found that the subsurface safety valves were a safety asset because of failure
times in excess of 1,000 days. This was a risk-based study which took into account both the likelihood
of a blowout during operations, and the likelihood of a blowout during an operation to replace a malfunctioning safety valve. This argument was also addressed in a paper from SINTEF on reliability of
well equipment, where they plotted blowout probability as a function of mean time to critical failure.
The papers are recommended reading for a discussion of the risks involved.
There are some advantages to a ball valve over a flapper v a 1 ~ e .These
l~
may have an effect in an
HTHP completion, although the flapper valve is still suggested for most instances. The advantages of
a ball valve are:
1. The valve and seat are wiped each time the valve is cycled. This action may clear deposits in a

waxy environment.
2. Slam closure damage is unlikely with a ball valve (this problem has been eliminated in most

designs of flapper valves by contouring of the valve flapper and improvements in metallurgy).
3. The sealing surfaces of the ball and seat are out of the path of corrosive or abrasive well fluids
when the valve is open (the newer types of flapper valves use a tube extension to minimize corrosion and abrasion from flowing well fluids).

16-9

4. For any given size, the valve-to-seat contact area (metal-to-metal) is slightly greater in a ball
valve than in a flapper valve.

Old-style ball valves may have an exposed ball design. This type of configuration increases the likelihood of damage to the sealing surface on the ball.
A number of papers offer comments on seal r e l i a b i l i t ~ . ~For
- ~ ~HTHP wells there is increasing reliance on metal-to-metal seals. Other types of seal materials have been evaluated but very high wear
or solvent attack usually eliminate elastomers (rubbers) from considerations.
Annular safety valves, ASVs, systems are starting to be required, based on the philosophy of total well
~ o n t r o I . Since
~ ~ - ~the
~ North Sea Piper Alpha disaster, the philosophy of isolating all hydrocarbons,
through both tubing and annular space from the surface, has been adopted. This has meant a broader
application for annular control technology. The basic annular control system in any type of completion
is usually based around a shallow set packer that supports or hangs the tubing string. The slip contact
effect of these packers can be significant in a deep well, leading to casing distortion and possible failure. Improvement in slips and contact area with casing is important in these deeper wells.
Another method of hanging the strings has been to place a nipple in the casing string from which to
hang the annular system.24 This type of system is shown in Figure 3. The nipple designer facilitates
space out of the string through use of PBR. other comments are:
1.

No packer setting required.

2. Can support higher hanging weight than a packer.

3. Fewer components/fewer seals.
4. More room for hydraulic, chemical and instrument lines.

5. More room for wireline.

The nipple approach is endorsed by several makers of ASVs. It has been used in Germany but is relatively unknown in other areas. The basic problem is that most operators do not plan their casing
strings to use the nipple concept. An alternative to the nipple is the more common ASV packer, a modified hanger design that uses very large slip contacts to minimize casing distortion and damage. Tests
of the packers to over 700,000 lbm have been successful run. Slip area can be as much as 10 times
normal packer slip area.23
As with subsurface safety valves, annular safety valves may also cause problems. An example from
the SINTEF paper covered an accident causing an underground blowout during a failure of an annular
safety valve. The control line to the annular valve was apparently crushed while the completion was
being run. When the crew pressured up the system, the hydraulic oil supply tubing held pressure, indicating success. However, the annular safety valve remained closed. When the well came on production and heated the fluid in the top part of the well, the pressure buildup caused a tubing collapse and
a casing burst.

Annular Pressure Buildup

The problem of annular pressure increase caused by expansion of fluids on heating is of great concern in HTHP wells, and especially in HTHP subsea
In the subsea wells, bleeding pressure
through the wellhead, as is done routinely on surface wells, is not easily possible. A number of papers
are available to model the pressure buildup and design-specific completions for the pressure buildup.
In most wells, either bleeding the pressure off or placing a compacting material in the annulus can

16-10

ADJUSTABLE
UNION

WINO

REmIEvABLE
VAlVE

rn

hSVcoHlROL

UNE

AWRow

DUAL BORE HANGER

PASSAQE

UTCH

WYD~UUUC
CONTKx UN
Km TRSV

ANNULAR
SAFEW VUVE

. GASINQNIPPLE
(P6R)rSsEMBLY

KmELASTOMERlC
SEALS

CASlNQ NIP=
(PBR)*ssu(BLY

SPACW PUPJOINT

NQGowlNaW
EUSIDMEFIK:
LOWERSEU.

RUTESFOR
MWP*SSAOE

SIngk String ASV-PBR System

Dud M n g ASV-PER Syst@m

Figure 16.3: Examples of ASVs in Nipples Set in the Casing

(SPE 267410)

handle the pressure buildup. Cost comparison of this method has been good when compared to
expensive methods such as the high-weight casing and may generate savings, particularly for the
HTHP wells. The technique has been studied by Conoco Norway.26Other methods which have been
used include use of heavyweight or high yield casing, leaving part of the formation behind the casing
exposed to leak fluid off, or providing a leak path or a bleed port.
The heavyweighvhigh yield casing seeks to provide strong enough casing to resist pressures generated by the heat-up process. The technique is popular, but it relies heavily on an accurate knowledge
of the endpoint pressure. The drawback of the method is cost. The high casing weight or grade typically translates into higher prices. Secondly, sour service conditions may eliminate the use of the
higher alloy grades. The last problem is that the system does not actually solve the problem; it merely
contains it. Leaving the top of the cement below the previous casing shoe allows an exposed formation zone for leakoff, bleeding pressures into the formation. This approach is both inexpensive and
effective, but a good formation not always available and it is not always possible to predict the top of
the cement correctly. Providing a leak port or path is certainly feasible on a surface wellhead and technically feasible on a subsea wellhead. Casing accumulators have been used on Norphlet Field (Mobile
Bay) completions to control pressure buildup eliminating surface lines.

References
1. Snyder, R. E. and Suman, G. O., Jr.: World Oils High Pressure Well Completions Handbook,
World Oil, 1979.

16-11

2. Stuart, C. A.: Geopressures, Proc. 2nd Symposium on Abnormal Subsurface Pressure, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 30, 1970.
3. Pennebaker, E. S.: Seismic Data Indicate Depth, Magnitude of Abnormal Pressures, World Oil,
June 1968.
4. Eaton, B. A.: Deep Well Planning Can Minimize Drilling Problems, World Oil, June 1972,
pp. 59-62.
5. Fertl, W. H. and Timko, D. J.: How Downhole Temperatures, Pressures Affect Drilling, 10 part
series World Oil, June 1972 to March 1973.
6. Cowan, K. M., Hale, A. H. and Nahm, J. J.: Conversion of Drilling Fluids to Cements with Blast
Furnace Slag: Performance Properties and Applications for Well Cementing, SPE 24575, Washington, DC, October 4-7, 1992.
7. Benge, 0. G. and Webster, W. W.: Evaluation of Blast Furnace Slag Slurries for Oil Field Applications, SPE 27449, IADCKPE.
8. Wehunt, C. D., Van Arsdale, H., Warner, J. L. and Ali, S.: Laboratory Acidization of an Eolian
Sandstone at 38OoF, SPE 25211, New Orleans, March 2-5, 1993.
9. McDermott, J. R. and Mertin, B. L.: Completion Design for Deep, Sour Norphlet Gas Wells Offshore Mobile, Alabama, SPE 24772, Washington, DC, October 4-7, 1992.
10. Medley, E. L.: Experience with Surface Controlled Sub-Surface Safety Valves, EUR32, London,
October 24-27, 1978.
11. Molnes, E. and Sundet, I.: Reliability of Well Completion Equipment, SPE 26721, Aberdeen,
September 7-1 0, 1993.
12. Molnes, E., Rausand, M. and Lindquist, B.: SCSSV Reliability Tested in North Sea, Petroleum
Eng. Int., November 1987, pp. 30-36.
13. Engen G. and Ransand, M.: Reliability Studies Test SCSSVs in The North Sea, Pet. Eng. Intl.,
February 1984, pp. 30-36.

M. T.: The Highlander Field - One Years Operating Experience, J. Pet.

Tech., February 1990, pp. 220-224.

14. Dover, S.and Cooling,

15. Sides, W. M. and Going, W.: Controlling Self-Equalizing Velocity Extends Valve Life, Pet. Eng.
Int., February 1992, pp. 46-48.
16. Mason, P.G.T.: Downhole High-pressure Equalizing Safety Valves: A Solution-Variable Labyrinth Seals, OTC 5576, Houston, April 27-30, 1987.
17. Busch, J. M., Policky, B. J. and Llewelyn, D.C.G.: Subsurface Safety Valves: Safety Asset or
Safety Liability, J. Pet. Tech., October 1985, pp. 1813-1818.
18. Dines, C. A.: A Definitive Approach to the Selection of Downhole Safety Valves for Deep-Water
Fields, Oceanology International 80.
19. Morris, A. J.: Elastomers are Being Eliminated in Subsurface Completion Equipment,
SPE 13244, Houston, September 16-19, 1984.

16-12

20. Going, W. S., Pringle, R. E.: Safety Valve Technology for the 1990s, SPE 18393, London,
October 16-19, 1988.
21. Smith, R. R.: New Contoured, Elliptical-Seal Flapper Valve Facilitates API Class II Metal-toMetal Sealing Performance, OTC 7011, Houston, May 4-7, 1992.
22. Nystrom, K. 0. and Morris, D. W.: Selecting a Surface-Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve for
Deep, Hot, High-pressure, Sour Gas Offshore Completions, SPE 11997, October 5-8, 1983.
23. Leismer, D.: A System Approach to Annular Control for Total Well Safety, SPE 26740, OTC,
Houston, May 3-6, 1993.
24. Taylor, R. W., Longbottom, J. R., Adams, M. P. and White, P. M.: Primary Design Considerations
for a Packerless Annular Safety Valve (ASV) System for the North Sea, SPE 26741, Aberdeen,
September 7-10, 1993.
25. Geyelin, J. L.: Downhole Safety Valve for Concentric Completion, SPE 16536, Aberdeen,
September 7-8, 1987.
26. Oudeman, P. and Bucarreza, L. J.: Field Trial Results of Annular Pressure Behavior in a HP/HT
Well, SPE 26738, Aberdeen, September 7-1 0, 1993.
27. Leach, C. P. and Adams, A. J.: A New Method for the Relief of Annular Heat-Up Pressures,
SPE 25497, Oklahoma City, March 21-23, 1993.
28. Adams, A.: How to Design for Annulus Fluid Heat-Up, SPE 22871, Dallas, October 6-9, 1991.
29. Cassidy, S. D.: Solutions to Problems Drilling a High-pressure, High-Temperature Well,
SPE 24603, Washington, DC, October 4-7, 1992.
30. Krus, H. and Prieur, J. M.: High Pressure Well Design, SPE 20900, The Hague, October 22-24,
1990.
31. Crow, R. and Craig, B. D.: Drilling and Completion Practices for Deep Sour Gas Wells in the
Madden Deep Unit of Wyoming, SPE 24604, Washington, DC, October 4-7, 1992.

16-13

Chapter 17: Water Production Control

The treatment of wells to prevent or control unwanted fluid production has a long history in the oil production industry. Methods of modifying channeling, gas or water coning and other reservoir problems
have resulted in a great many treatments, most of which were unsuccessful. This section describes
procedures and techniques to modify flow paths or change other reservoir characteristics near the
wellbore to control unwanted production or injection of fluids.
The modification of the reservoir to achieve water shutoff, redistribution of injection or other sweep
improvement in a secondary flood operation, is a poor substitute for using reservoir information to plan
the location of wellbores to take advantage of the reservoir features. Unfortunately, by the time such
information is known about the formation, the wells have been drilled and there many not be sufficient
reserves to justify new wells. With the increasing use of the technology of horizontal wells and the
radial extension drilling from existing vertical wells, however, newer techniquesto improve the drainage in established fields are available. Before extensive experimentation with the chemical and
mechanical methods of changing flow paths, a study should be made o@the possibility of using the
reservoir character to improve the fluid recovery.
Summary of Important Points

The following major points illustrate the experience gained with treatment of water injection and production problems.
1. For chemical or physical permeability modifying techniques to be successful in a pattern water-

flood, the treatment must be injected deep enough into the reservoir to modify the flow of the
fluid in a large area of the pattern. The actual depth of injection required will depend on horizontal and vertical permeability and well spacing in the pattern. In waterfloods, it may be necessary
to selectively treat both injector and producer.
2. If deeply penetrating, permanent permeability reducing techniques are used in a primary recov-

ery zone, the residual hydrocarbons in the zone may not be available by later recovery methods.
3. For near wellbore permeability reduction or water control techniques to be completely effective,
there must be natural, impermeable reservoir-wide barriers between the treated zone and the
productive zone, the vertical permeability must be very low in contrast to horizontal permeability,
or a pressure balance method of depletion may be used.
4. Treatment of a zone to reduce water flow in a pattern waterflood, especially a very high perme-

ability zone, will reduce the total fluid injected in the well. In wells that are operating just below
the fracture extension pressure, the zones cannot take any more fluid, regardless of the available volume of water. Reducing the flow capacity of a high permeability zone must be accompanied by a lowering of the expectation of water input. The only way to more rapidly process or
sweep the formation is to drill more wells and reduce the distances between injector and producer. This is of critical importance in a low permeability reservoir.
Sources of Water

Before touching on a discussion of shutoff methods, a brief description of the sources of water influx is
worthwhile.20 Water may exist in solution with oil or as water mixed with gas. Water may also exist as
a pore filling phase (conflate water) or it may flow into the reservoir in response to pressure reduction.
1. Solution water exists as a mixture of water vapor in hot gas reservoirs or as a dissolved phase
in the oil. The amount of water that can be dissolved in oil is small, usually less than 0.2% by vol-

ume. However, more water is often contained as a micro-droplet dispersion in oil. What ever the
method of containment, the production of this type of water cannot be stopped.

17-1

2. Connate water is a distinct phase in the pore of the formation. When production is started, some
of this connate water will be produced. The amount that is mobile will depend on the irreducible
water volume. Pore fillings that create high microporosity, such as some chlorite and illite clays,
will hold higher volumes of this water. Like the solution water, this type of water cannot be
stopped without stopping the oil.
3. Active drive aquifers, from either bottom or edge sources, can provide pressure support for
enhanced recovery from a reservoir but can also produce enormous quantities water. If permeability barriers exist between the water and oil zones or if the reservoir vertical permeability is
much lower than the horizontal permeability, then water production from these sources can be
controlled in the near wellbore. Since the water drive is an active pressure support, the water
production cannot be stopped completely, but with careful planning, the water movement can be
used to advantage to help drive the oil.

a. In bottom water drive applications, coning near the wellbore is the biggest problem. Stopping
coning requires information on the values of horizontal and vertical permeability. When vertical permeability is much less than horizontal permeability (below 50%), then near wellbore
treatments to place permeability barriers can have some effect in reducing water production.
If the formation is fractured, either naturally or hydraulically, matrix permeability barriers are
useless. If the vertical permeability approaches 50% or more of horizontal permeability, barriers are also useless, but horizontal wells may be very useful.
b. In edge water drives, the problem is from both vertical permeability and from horizontal permeability variance or streaks of high permeability. These streaks can allow water breakthrough early in the project life. For successful control, the streaks must be plugged from the
production well. Depth of plugging depends on the vertical permeability. If there are barriers
(vertical perm=O), then plugging depth can be shallow. If vertical permeability is high, the
barrier must extend nearly back to the original oil/water contact if the water control is to be
successful.
c. In the special case of fractured reservoir, the fractures must be plugged deep (radius of
treatment of hundreds of feet) before any water control attempt will be long lasting. If the
fracture extends down into the water, density contrast techniques may be effective in plugging off just the bottom zone.
4. Water injection in a flood follows the same rules as an edge water drive except that plugging can
be applied from both producing and injection wells. Barriers are critical to individual zone control.
5. Entry of water from reservoir or tubular leaks may be very troublesome, but usually can be identified by salinity contrast and sealed by repair treatments such as cementing squeezes.

Problem Definition Reservoir

Before any treatments can logically be discussed, a definition of the problem must be presented. Without a full understanding of what is causing the sweep problem or unwanted water production in a well
or between wells, effective treating is a very remote possibility. An analysis of fluid flow patterns and a
description of the reservoir are critical to success.
There is a distinct separation of water channelling problems into near wellbore and deep reservoir
based on both effect in the reservoir and methods of treatment. In the near wellbore area of production wells, the greatest problem in producing hydrocarbon fluids from all of the pay is permeability contrast. No formation is homogeneous, and permeability variations of 1 to 2 orders of magnitude are
common in many reservoirs. To effectively drain all of the reservoir often requires selective stimulation
of the lower permeability sections, or at times, reducing the permeability of the higher permeability
zone if a water or gas drive is active.
When a reservoir contains natural fractures, the problem of rapidly and evenly producing all the reservoir may be compounded. Open natural fractures provide a pathway with typical permeability between
10 millidarcies and 1 darcy. Completion of a well into a naturally fractured reservoir invariably leads to

17-2

a state of flush production during which producing rates are very high, followed by a sharp decline in
rate as the fractures empty. Production may fall 50 to 90% in a matter of weeks. The production stabilizes with flow from the matrix into the natural fracture system. This is a characteristic of the naturallyfractured formation and is not a solvable problem. Natural fracture systems are usually a positive
aspect of the reservoir, especially if the well locations are selected to take advantage of the improved
drainage that the fracture system offers. Many times, however, the natural fracture system is not
extensive enough to economically serve as a conduit to the wellbore. In these cases, hydraulic fracturing with either acid in a carbonate formation or proppant and a fluid in either carbonates or sandstone
are very beneficial if the fracture can be contained in zone.

Problem Definition Near Wellbore

Mechanical problems in the well are often invisible culprits which cause productivity of a well to suffer.
Incorrectly sized tubing, casing, insufficient perforations or improperly designed lift systems can act as
a choke on a reservoir and severely limit production. There is no cure for a mechanical problem other
than redesigning and recompleting the well.
Coning

Natural and induced problems in a well include fluid coning or channeling, water or gas blockages and
related relative permeability effects?-3 Coning of a fluid usually occurs when a oil or gas zone is bordered by water in a reservoir with no barriers between the pays. It also may occur as gas coning into
an oil producing interval. Coning is a response of a fluid to flow towards a pressure drop. It occurs
when only part of a fluid filled, continuous formation or series of formations is perforated. The pressure in the produced area of the formation is lowered through production. The fluid in the adjacent
zone then moves up or down towards the pressure drop. Coning will occur in any reservoir where
there is an absence of a permeability barrier between the produced fluid and the unwanted fluid.
Coning results in an increase in the unwanted fluid and a decrease in the production of the oil. The oil
decrease occurs because the water or gas in the cone occupies part of the pore space that was once
occupied by the oil. The amount of coning is related to the amount of vertical permeability (in the
absence of a barrier), the mobility of the produced and coned fluids, and the pressure differential.
A sketch of cone development is shown in Figure 17.1. At initial production, the oil and water (in this
case) lies at the initial oillwater contact and the entire oil column is perforated. As the oil is produced,
the water rises near the wellbore in the section of the reservoir that was occupied by the oil. The operator often reacts to the water encroachment by squeezing off the lower perfs with cement or other
chemical barrier material. The water continues to rise in the zone with the operator squeezing and producing at the same or a higher drawdown. At abandonment of the well, there is a large amount of oil
remaining in the reservoir but only a small path to the wellbore. This problem is especially acute in
bottom water drive reservoirs. Controlling coning is attempted by restricting the producing rate to a
value that minimizes water rise or by chemical treatments.
There are a number of mathematical models for prediction of the maximum production rates to avoid
or slow the rate of coning.4* These models assume a homogeneous formation with no natural fractures (these are usually poor assumptions). An equation from Karp8 is given as a example method.

0.0246 k,Ap ( h2 - D2)

where:
kh

= horizontal permeability in darcies

17-3

......................
.......................
.................
...................
....................
..................

~.:~.:t.:.:.:.~

Figure 17.1: A worst case, very advanced cone that has caused early P&A of a
well. This type of cone may occur where vertical permeability was
as high or higher than horizontal permeability as in the case of
localized natural fractures extendina from the hvdrocarbon zone
into the water zone in the area near &e wellbore.

Ap
h
D
PO

B
re

rb
rw

= density difference, Ibm/ft3

= oil-zone thickness, ft

= completion interval thickness, ft

-- oil viscosity, cp
= oil FVF, RB/STB
-- drainage radius
= radius barrier (if used), otherwise rb = rw
-- wellbore radius

The use of an artificial barrier has been proposed by several authors to prevent or slow cone development.2*8i4These barriers are usually envisioned as thin, impermeable and pancake shaped as shown
in Figure 17.2. The chemicals used for this treatment include polymers, inorganic gels, and foam. The
basic problem with all the treatments is the diameter of the barrier. It must extend into the reservoir far
enough so that the gravitational force on the water will be larger than its response toward the pressure
drop of the production well. This concept is neither affordable nor possible for most treating chemicals.
Barriers rarely are a long term solution to the problem of coning and water breakthrough regularly
occur, Figure 17.3. Additional problems with barriers are that they are seldom accurately placed in the
right location and that they channel through the formation rather than moving out uniformly from the
wellbore. Vertical channels often do not exactly overylay horizontal permeability channels.
The more promising methods of controlling water coning in the most severe cases are the use of horizontal wells, Figure 17.4, and the concept of balanced fluid withdrawal from the r e ~ e r v o i r .Coning
~*~
control by the horizontal well are discussed in the chapter on special completions. Balanced fluid withdrawal involves the removal of both oil and water from the well. The primary method of equalizing
pressure is to even the drawdown across both the water and the oil zones. This is a radical change in
production procedure since it requires perforating the water zone, isolation at the interface with a good
cement job and a packer, and then dually completing the water zone with a dedicated lift system and
surface facility. The drawbacks in initial cost could be overcome in some projects by the savings in
water treating and disposal. Water produced in this manner should be naturally low in oil and the producer may be able to classify the water in a different manner as the water separated from oil.
The procedure would obviously be most applicable where oil-water separation problems were severe,
where large vertical permeability values could create rapid cones, and where legal restrictions were
very stringent. The process would be of only limited use in reservoirs with edge water drive and those

17-4

Figure 17.2: An idealized schematic of a barrier in the reservoir

separating the hydrocarbon and water zones. Barriers
are probably never this uniform since they follow the
same low resistance pathways as other injected fluids.

Figure 17.3:

Probably results of water flow around a barrier as

water flow responds to the continued pressure
decrease in the hydrocarbon zone caused by fluid
withdrawal.

under water flood. Reservoirs that depend upon the bottom water drive as the sole source of driving
energy could still use the dual completion process by controlling the rate of upward movement of the
oil-water interface. This may be accomplished by balanced fluid withdrawals at the production wellbore and water replacement in the aquifer at an injection well.
Water Block

Occasionally, when a well is killed with water or when a well goes off production and fills up with produced water, the water will enter the zone of gas or oil production and displace the hydrocarbons from
the area around the wellbore. In some cases, when the well is returned to production, the hydrocarbons will not displace the water. This behavior is usually indicative of a water block. Water blocks cannot be perfectly defined in the sense that they cannot be reliably recreated in the laboratory. However,

17-5

.-.
:::
$0

drawdown
Uses bottom water

Figure 17.4: Use of a horizontal well to slow the rate of coning in

a bottom water drive reservoir.
there are four conditions which usually occur when a severe water block is encountered: (1) an
untreated water (surface tension near 72 dyne/cm); (2) low reservoir pressure; (3) small pore throats;
and (4) a gas zone (low pressure oil zones account for roughly 10 to 25% of reported water blocks).
Although water blocks have been known to form in oil zones, they are rarer than the water blocks
reported from gas producing zones. Blockages in the oil zones may also be the result of emulsions or
sludges formed from contact of oil with water or acids. Diagnosis is difficult and the major problems
(emulsion) is usually prepared for with a treatment of alcohol or alcohol mixture mutual solvent that
can penetrate deeply and remove either emulsion or water block.
Water blocks are usually physical changes to relative permeability or clay equilibrium. Other relative
permeability problems are related to the presence of natural or injected surfactants which may cause
an oil or water wetting (a bound layer of water or oil) and in situ emulsions. Any time that the pore passages are restricted by trapped fluid or high viscosity fluid, regardless of the method entrapment, flow
will be restricted.
Other near wellbore problems include the formation of scale, the deposition of paraffin, and the occurrence of migrating fines in the near wellbore area or in the reservoir. These problems and the induced
problems of surfactant adsorption and emulsions are best described as formation damage and can be
controlled with remedial treatment and/or inhibition production techniques.

Problem Definition Injection Well

The injection well is a special case of flow path consideration. In the unfractured injection well, the
flow is outward radial flow. Injection of fluid in the unfractured case is described by the concept of
radial darcy flow through cylindrical beds in series where the beds may be areas of different permeability or layers of permeability-reducing material from solids carryover. In addition, in a typical heterogeneous formation, fractures, high permeability channels and permeability barriers (faults,
permeability pinchouts, etc.) all affect the distribution of fluids at the injection well or the reservoir.
Once in the reservoir, the sweep pattern between injection and production wells are directly controlled
by the path of least resistance: the fluids move in the highest permeability channels to the limit of what
the channels can carry towards an area of reduced pressure. Permeability variations and pressure
distributions through the reservoir completely control the way fluids move and the rate of their movement from injection well to production well.
The mobility ratio, solubility of fluids within each other and the effect of injected gases on heavy ends
are all very important; however, the fluids will only go where the reservoir characteristics allows them.
The most basic problem, then, is how to successfully modify the reservoir character or use the reservoir character to the best advantage for oil recovery. Because of varying operating philosophies for
water floods over the years, most injection wells have been fractured. This must be considered in job
design.

17-6

Reservoir Description and Modeling Necessities

To properly apply any lasting and effective profile modification mechanism, regardless of whether it is
relocation of the wellbore, deep matrix penetration of a permeability-reducing material or near wellbore application of a zone shutoff material, it is imperative that a good description of the reservoir be
available. This description will likely be a combination of geologic and engineering knowledge and
hopefully will be present in the form of computer simulator to save time in comparison of zone control
mechanisms. To use the reservoir simulation route, the model must be constructed with as much
detailed reservoir description involving flow geometry as is possible. Location of natural fractures, vertical or horizontal permeability impairments, hydraulic fractures, thief zones and a complete description of the driven and driving fluids are necessities. From this information, a solution giving details on
how deep to inject a permeability modification material or where to relocate the wellbores of injection
and production wells to make optimum use of the reservoir characteristics may be possible. Simplistic
two-dimensional models or linear correlations are rarely adequate. Modeling is greatly aided by the
input of data gathered in monitoring of water in flu^.^
Treating Considerations

Obviously, the large volume treatment of wells with expensive chemicals will depend on the amount of
reserves remaining on a particular area of the field and the opportunities for success. The selection of
matrix treating materials should also take into account the later plans for the reservoir in terms of stimulation or a tertiary flood. If a matrix or a thief zone is completely shut off by a deeply penetrating, permeability-reducing material, the opportunities for tertiary recovery are severely diminished. Most of the
water shutoff materials are not removable because of either lack of a solvent or inability to contact the
blocking material in the pores of the rock. Acid can remove most cement plugs and perforating can
reach beyond those that are shallow ( r 4 ft). Fracturing is the only mechanism that can reach beyond
the deeply penetrating shutoff techniques.

Modification of Permeability
Regardless of flow geometry of the reservoir, there will always be a need, usually several times in the
life of a project, for a treatment to change the permeability of a particular zone. These treatments can
be divided into two subdivisions of the two major classes: deep and shallow methods of either
decreasing permeability or increasing permeability. Whenever permeability of a zone is reduced by
chemical treatment, the total water injection expectations to a well should be reduced or other
zones should be carefully fractured if possible. Allowing indiscriminate fracturing of a well by
increasing pressure to increase injection rate should be avoided at all costs.

Deep Modification Permeability Reduction

To deeply reduce or plug off high permeability, a few methods are available with proven performance.
The processes described in the following paragraphs are all listed in the cross-reference of
Table 17.1. Deep treating processes include silica ge11*12and lignosulfonate gel for matrix treating
and fly ash, limestone fines, or thermoset or catalyzed plastics for shallow to moderate depth plugging
of gravel packs or fractures.10112 Foam diversion is often listed as a deep matrix plugging technique
but may be operable only in formations where matrix permeability is at least on the order of several
hundred millidarcie~.~
Most polymer systems, including those intended for deep treatment, are usually limited to shallow placement by the high viscosity of the gel or undissolved polymer buildup
(fisheyes, microgels and trash) on the injection face. Crosslinked polymers may have application in
plugging fractures.

Deep Modification Increasing Permeability

Unfortunately, hydraulic fracturing is the only method of improving the permeability enough to influence the reservoir flow behavior. Although there is very good confidence in the mechanics of fracturing, the direction or orientation of the fracture is controlled by the reservoir stresses, and the fracture
height growth from large fracture treatments (above and below the plane of interest) is difficult to regulate, although monitoring techniques are a~ailable.~
The technology of very tightly controlled fractur-

17-7

lame i7.1 : Generic Materrais ana Processes Available tor Reaucing Permeability
Product
Lignosulfonate Gel
Silica Gel
Polymers
Foam

Comments
deeply penetrating, total permeability snutoff
moderately to deeply penetrating, total permeability shutoff
shallow penetrating, partial to total permeability shutoff
unproven except in high permeability control, may have good application in
steam wells
shallow penetrating, permanent, total permeability shutoff
shallow penetrating, some application where distinct separation of water
occurs but exact zone locations are unknown
face plugging of a zone. Only effective where barriers exist or vertical permeability is a small fraction of horizontal permeability
a designation for a slurry of dry cement in diesel or other oil. The mixture sets
up when water is contacted. Basic application is in vuggy or naturally fractured
formations with distinct oil and water pays where the exact zone locations are
not known. Penetration is typically shallow in vugs or fractures. It produces
face plugging in any matrix.

Plastics
Selective Polymers
Cement
"Gunk Squeeze"

ing in small treatments, to limit length and height growth, is currently available and should be
considered when injection rate must be increased.

Shallow Modification Permeability Reduction

There are many products and techniques to selectively or totally reduce the permeability in the near
wellbore area.10*15-19To describe them, they should be separated into groups designed to accomplish
the specific tasks of: (1) total zone shutoff, (2) coning and encroachment control, and (3) selective
permeability reduction.
Total permeability shutoff can be easily accomplished by a number of products if one criteria is met:
there must be an impermeable barrier between the zone being sealed and the producing zones. If
there is a barrier, then cement squeezes, plastics, polymers and inorganic gels will all work. If there is
no barrier to flow, the problem will be the same as the coning problem addressed in the following
paragraph.
Controlling coning is usually a delaying tactic and the established treatments may isolate large quantities of otherwise recoverable reserves. Coning occurs when water (or less frequently, gas) takes over
part of the productive oil zone. The flow of water is a reaction to production of hydrocarbons leading to
a lower pressure in the oil zone in general and the near wellbore area in particular. Squeezing off the
lower perfs and completing higher in the zone may temporarily reduce water production, but water
breakthrough will occur and oil may be trapped and production hindered in this limited completion.
Eventually, in the case of an active bottom water drive, the wellbore will be completely watered out
and no oil will be produced, even though substantial reserves may remain in the reservoir.
Chemical companies have several products designed and sold as selective permeability reducers.
These products (usually polymers) can treat a sandpack or formation core so that oil will pass through
the pack but water will not. While the sales concept and benchtop tests are impressive, the technology
is extremely poor and will probably reduce oil production in any well where oil and water are produced
from the same zone or in many coning applications. In any case where oil flows with water towards a
pressure drawdown, reducing or stopping the water will reduce or stop oil production. If there is no
way of removing the water from around the wellbore then there is no method to flow oil toward the well
as long as the water is there.

17-8

Shallow Modification Increasing Permeability

Most matrix methods (nonfracturing) of increasing permeability in reservoir rock are very shallow penetrating. Fortunately, very shallow damage removal can boost production or injection enormously and
even increases of undamaged permeability can boost production or injection several percent.
Removal of damage is the most important item in consideration of methods of improving production or
injection with an inexpensive near wellbore treatment. Improving initial matrix permeability with acid or
other chemical methods can assist in a small way, but most matrix methods are limited to a few feet of
penetration at the very most. By examination of flow capacity increase available by the beds-in-series
modification of Darcy law, it can be demonstrated that the maximum increase available is only a few
percent.
Very small, carefully controlled fracture treatments are also useful in improving near wellbore permeability. The short, fat fracs of a few thousand gallons of fluid and several thousand pounds of proppant are very useful for improving flow. In limestones, acid breakdowns are a standard in treating and
retreating both injection and production wells, both from a cleanout and stimulation viewpoint.

References
1. Endean H. J., Shelton, R. D.: Water lnitiaied Problems in Production Operations, Champion

Technologies, Inc., Houston, Texas, 1991.

2. Richardson, J. G., Sangree, J. B. and Sneider, R. M.: Coning, Technology Today Series, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (August 1987), pp. 883-884.

3. Sparlin, Derry D. and Hagen, Raymond W. Jr.: Controlling Water in Producing Operations,
World Oil, (April 1984), pp. 77-86.
4. Woods, E. G. and Khurana, A. K.: Pseudo-functions for Water Coning in a 3-0 Reservoir Simulator, SPE 5525.

5. Wheatley, M. J.: An Approximate Theory of OilNVater Coning, SPE 1421 0.

6. Giger, F. M.: Analytic 2-D Models of Water Cresting Before Breakthrough for Horizontal Wells,
SPE 15378.

7. Chaperone, I.: Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and Vertical Wells in Anisotropic
Formations: Subcritical and Critical Rates, SPE 15377, 1986 SPE Annual Mtg. New Orleans,
OCt 5-8.

8. Karp, J. C., Lowe, D. K., Marusov, N.: Horizontal Barriers for Controlling Water Coning, J. Pet.
Tech., (July 1962).
9. Patton, L. Douglas: Optimize Production Through Balanced Reservoir Depletion, Part 4--1njection and Water Influx Monitoring, Petroleum Engineer International, (March 1989), pp. 28-30.
10. Sparlin, Derry D. and Hagen, Raymond W. Jr.: Controlling Water in Producing Operations, Part
4-Grouting Materials and Techniques, World Oil, (June 1984), pp. 149-152.

1 1 . Jurinak, J. J., Summers, L. E. and Bennett, K. E.: Oilfield Application of Colloidal Silica Gel,
SPE 18505, pp. 425-454.

17-9

12. Smith, L. R., Fast, C. R. and Wagner, 0. R.: Development and Field Testing of Large Volume
Remedial Treatments for Gross Water Channeling, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (August
1969), pp. 1015-1025.
13. Dietz, et al.: Foam Drive Seldom Meaningful, JPT, May 1985, pp. 921-922.
14. Strickland, Richard F.: Artificial Barriers May Control Water Coning-1
nal, (October 7, 1974), pp. 61-64.

,I

The Oil and Gas Jour-

15. Carroll, J. F. and Bullen, B.: Successful Water Control Examples in Gulf of Mexico Gravel
Packed Gas Completions, SPE 18228, pp. 495-501.

16. Burkholder, L. A. and Withington, K. C.: New Gel Suppresses Water Flow in Oil Wells, Oil and
Gas Journal, (September 1987), pp. 93-98.
17. Hess, Patrick H., Clark, C. O., Haskin, C. A. and Hull, T. R.: Chemical Method for Formation
Plugging, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (May 1971), pp. 559-564, 153, 63-66.
18. Chan, Keng Seng: Injection Profile Modification With a New Non-Polymer Gelling System,
Petroleum Society of CIM, Paper No. 89-40-46, pp. 46-1 -46-1 4.
19. Rike, J. L.: Obtaining Successful Squeeze - Cementing results, SPE 4608, Las Vegas, Nev.,
Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 1973.
20. Chan, K. S.: Water Control Diagnostic Plots, SPE 30775, Dallas, Oct. 22-25, 1995.

17-10

Chapter 18: Wireline and Coiled Tubing Operations

Wireline and coiled tubing are basic conveyance tools used in the workover and completion of wells.
The following information will help explain the operation of each.
Wireline Operations

The use of wireline in downhole oilfield operations began with cable tool rigs in the early days of the
oil industry. The wireline on the rig was used to drill (with the cable tool assemblies) and to also place
and retrieve other simple tools. Downhole tools began developing in the 1930s with the advent of the
first wireline replaced gas lift valve. Twenty years later, dual completions became popular and a multitude of tools were developed for use in wireline operations.
In the early 1950s, wireline retrievable gas lift valves became widely accepted. Other equipment
developed in this era included the wireline operated sliding sleeve, elective crossovers, and a multitude of tools and jars for fishing operations. At the same time, hydraulically powered wireline reels
were developed, increasing the possibilities of wireline workovers. Wirelines are popular because of
their versatility, and their quick setup and running time.
There are three types of wireline currently in operation: slickline (a single-strand piano wire), braided
line, and braided lines with insulated electrical conductors (electric logging line).
As shown in the following data, wireline strength depends on thickness, All these specifications are for
bright plow steel wire. Other wires such as stainless, monel and specialty alloys are available.

The most popular slick lines have diameters of 0.092 and 0.1 08 in. The 0.1 08 line is stronger but is
more affected by wellhead pressure. The wellhead pressure creates an upward force or a resistance
that acts on the cross-section of the wireline. Added weights or sinker bars are necessary for increasing wireline diameters and increasing well pressure. Because of the added weight needed to make the
tools drop into the well, higher working loads are imposed on the wireline. Assignment of a safe working load may range from the 75% shown in the previous data to 50% depending on the service company, the type of job and general well and service unit conditions.* Failure to determine the right size
of wire for the job often results inthe use of oversized lines and added expense for a large derrick to
support the pulley.
When diameters larger than 0.1 08 in. are necessary, a braided line is commonly used. Various sizes
of the braided wireline are available, with the most common sizes being 1/8 in., 9/64 in. and 3/16 in.
When multiple electrical conduction or electrical manipulation of tools is required, logging lines with a
diameter of 3/16 in. or greater are used. Increasing the size of the wire increases the need for larger
surface equipment, and this increases the cost.
Entry of the wireline into the well becomes complex because the well pressure and flow must be controlled at the point of wire entry and the wireline must have as little friction as possible entering the

18-1

well in order for the weight bars, called wireline stems, to be minimized. (The weight of the stem pulls
the wire into the well, working against the pressure that is trying to push the wire out of the well.)
Surface equipment for wireline work will vary with the conditions of operation and the requirements for
the job. Normal items on location include a wireline reel and power unit (the reels are hydraulically
driven), a depth measuring device, a weight indicator to indicate weight felt at the spool, a wire line
BOP and a set of pulleys and a mast unit to provide a vertical approach into the well. The BOP or blow
out preventer and a lubricator are necessary when operations are done under p r e ~ s u r eA. ~simple
schematic of the surface equipment is shown in Figure 18.1. The weight necessary to assure the wireline entry in the well is a function of the pressure in the well and the size of the wireline. As can be
seen by the data in Figure 18.2, the small slick lines of 0.092 in. and less require very little weight to
achieve entry, while the larger lines increase very rapidly in weight requirements for well entry.2

Figure 18.1: A schematic of a wireline layout.

Sealing the wireline connection at the top of the lubricator requires a low friction seal such as a grease
barrier or other dynamic liquid seal. These special control heads maintain the final barrier to well pressure and must be well maintained.2b Using excessive grease in the seal can produce formation damage or hydrocarbon contamination of the area around the well head.
Line breakage is usually avoided by the use of an accurate weight indicator and adequate inspection
and safety factors on the line itself. Line breakage is usually caused by corrosion of the wire in a hostile well environment. Because of the large surface area to mass ratio of the wire, corrosion occurs
very quickly; often in a matter of minutes when the wrong line is used in a corrosive application. Special compositions of slick line and braided line are available as well as inhibitors to control the corrosion. Corrosion of wirelines is a serious problem that usually involves stress corrosion cracking,
especially in sour gas wells. Failures of several types of stainless (304, 31 6, 18-18-2) have been
reported along with some failures of duplex stainless wires4 In general, the higher nickel content, the
greater its resistance to failure in sour (hydrogen sulfide) wells.
Downhole Wireline Equipment
Wireline tools are usually simple devices that are engaged, disengaged or perform some function by
vertical movement of the wireline. The connection point of the wireline to the tool begins at the rope
socket, Figure 18.3. The wire passes through a "fishing neck" and into a cavity where it is secured by

18-2

WELL M E U U I E P3.I.
D T E t U M E R BAR W E W T WVE* IS I T B A L N I C I W W T . ADD V E W l U DESIRED TO WTAIN
W A R D MIYII.

(Bielstein)

Figure 18.2: Sinker bar weight needed to balance pressure and

friction. Line weight has been disregarded.

circling a spool and then wrapping around itself. Special rope sockets are used for the 0.092 and
smaller lines. A wedge neck, Figure 18.3, is used for the 0.1 08 line and for the multi-strand wires. The
fishing neck is simply a device that allows an overshot (a catch tool) to slip over the neck and lock in
the recess area. The fishing neck is a part of almost all downhole tools.

HOUSINO

CLAMP

SCREWS

BOX
UVLTI-STRAND

ROPE SOCKET

SINOLE STRAND

ROPE SOCKET

(Cameo)

Figure 18.3: Three examples of a rope socket. A regular wireline rope socket is at
left. At center is a socket for 0.108" wire. At right is a unit for braided
line.

Because straight pull capacity with wireline is relatively low (limited by the strength of the wireline), a
method is needed to amplify the pull without increasing the size of the wire. Tools called jars fulfil1 this
need. The normal jar device is a spang jar, Figure 18.4. This tool is essentially a slide hammer that
lets the wireline accelerate before the ends of the jars engage. The jarring action produced by these
small tools is intense and can often free a stuck object where a straight pull would fail. Placement of a

18-3

wireline stem (weight) immediately above the jar increases the effect of the jars (like using a larger
hammer). Various jar types are available but spang jars are the most common.

c--

WIRE

ROPE
SOCKET

WIEUNE
STEM

MECHANICAL

JARS

KWCKLE

JOM

(Carnco)
Figure 18.4: A schematic of spang jars.

Various tools are run below the jars to set and retrieve plugs, operate sliding sleeves or to fish for lost
objects. Running tools, Figure 18.5, and pulling tools, Figure 18.6, are to set and retrieve plugs. The
running tool is usually equipped with shearable set screws or clips (called dogs) that hold the plug in
place until it is set and the running tool is jarred off. Pulling tools use dogs that clip around the fishing
neck of the plug. Once the dogs are engaged, the equipment is jarred upward to pull the plug.
Bailers are hollow body chambers that can be used to carry cement into a well or retrieve samples or
debris from a well. These wireline conveyed tools, Figure 18.7, have a variety of triggering devices
that cause the contents of the bailer to dump or the bailer to open to receive the fluid of slurry or material around it. Bailers are small volume but their ease and speed of running makes them a favorite to
spot fluids and retrieve samples.
Wireline can also be a powerful diagnostic tool. The bailers can recover samples of debris and fluids,
and impression blocks can locate and give an imprint of debris of equipment in the hole. A blind box,
Figure 18.8, is run when the top of equipment is to be located or to tag the top of fill. The large size
of the block (relative to the tubing) keeps it from sliding past anything in the tubing. The impression
block, Figure 18.9, is like a blind box but has soft lead molded into the bottom of the box. By setting
down on the equipment that is in the well, an impression can be made of the top of the equipment. It is
useful to make prints of fishing neck tops and of parted tubing, prior to fishing.
One of the more common jobs for a slick line unit is replacing gas lift valves. This sequence of operations is shown in detail in Figures 18.10 (running) and Figure 18.11 (retrieval). The drawings and written procedures are part of a Camco training manual on wireline operations.
Running speeds for the wire line depends on hole condition and size, the type of tools being run and
the familiarity of the operator with the well. Normal running speeds vary from less than 100 Wminute
up to 1000 Wminute. As the tool string nears restrictions such as nipples, the line speed is reduced to
a few feet per minute.

18-4

PIN THREADS

41uR PINS

(Carnco)

Figure 18.5: One type of running tool that uses

shear pins. The pins are sheared after
the tool has been set.

CORE SPRING

SRFAR PW
DOG SPRING
PlryLs

DoCS
SKIRT

(Carnco)

Figure 18.6: One type of retrieving tool. Note the

clip-on face of the dogs.

18-5

(White et al., SPE 24574)

Figure 18.7: Wireline run bailers.

WRENCH FLATS

(Carnco)

Figure 18.8: A blind box. Usually run to tag bottom.

Pressure and Fluid Control

Plugs (called mandrels) can be wireline-set in the tubing to control pressure or flow. The places that
the plugs seat and seal are special equipment called nipples. The nipple often has a special diameter
or a combination of grooves (called a profile) that will only accept one type of plug. A number of nipples and profiles are shown in the drawings of Figure 18.12. In wells using multiple nipple installations, each nipple may be designed to receive a particular mandrel or all nipples may be of the same
design and the mandrel manipulated so as to lock in the appropriate nipple. In the first case, the nipple is said to be profile sensitive, and in the second case, the mandrel is profile sensitive. A pressure
tight seal is provided by a packing element on the plug and a polished bore in the nipple.5 Thus, several nipples may be placed at different points in a string and, by selecting the right plug, the operator
can be very selective about where the plug is set.

18-6

PIN THREADUP

ISHING NECK
RENCH FLATS

TEEL HOUSING

~Z~+STEE'

RETAINER PINS

(Camco)

Figure 18.9: A sketch of an impression block. The bottom

is smooth, soft lead.
PIN m
E
A
D UP

FISHING NECK

BY PASS SLOTS

W I T E R EDQE

(Carnco)

Figure 18.10: Gauge ring or paraffin cutter.

One disadvantage of a nipple is that it is a likely place for formation of scale or paraffin. If the profile
grooves are blocked by any type of deposit, the mandrel cannot be set.
Other functions of plugs are as vents, chokes, check valves, and flow diverters in injection wells. The
nipples may be solid wall or have ports to allow circulation when the plug is pulled. Other wireline-run
pressure control tools include sliding sleeves and a variety of fishing t o o k 2 Sleeves allow opening
and closing of a side entry port in the tubing, allowing entry of liquid or gas to unload strings or static
liquid from another zone?
Because of the problem of unlatching plugs that are holding pressure, relief ports are provided to
equalize pressure. Pressure equalizing must be done before unseating the plug to avoid blowing the

18-7

(Carnco)

Figure 18.11: Swedge (above) and a

broach (right) used for
reshaping restricted tubing.

(Baker)
Figure 18.12: Typical profile and two of the many plugs that
can be set to control, reroute, restrict, or completely stop flow.

plug and line up the hole. The force of pressure on a plug is calculated with the same equation used to
calculate force on a packer or closed end tube:

18-8

F
F
Ap

APXA

= force on a plug, Ib
= differential pressure on the plug, psi

2
A
= the area of the plug, in.
For a 1-7/8 in. plug, set in a 2-318 in. nipple with a pressure differential of 2500 psi, the force on the
plug would be

(2500) (2.76 h2)= 6902 lb

If the pressure is trapped below the plug, suddenly unseating the plug would likely blow the plug up
the tubing, causing problems with slack wireline (bird nests). Pressure equalizing features help prevent this type of problem.
Special Services

Wireline can also be used to cut-out paraffin and asphaltene deposits, to set packers, and for a variety
of other services. The advantages of this inexpensive tool is sufficient for many offshore platforms to
have a wireline unit as part of the routine equipment.

Tools for Downhole Measurements

Instruments for running well analysis are run and retrieved with wireline. These instruments may
record subsurface pressure, temperature, flow rate, and the type of fluid flow. They may also be used
to sample fluid at the bottom of the well under static or flowing conditions. Other wireline tools include
mechanical and sonic calipers to determine erosion or corrosion condition of the casing. As previously
illustrated in the section on diagnostics, a variety of data recording tools are available for wireline
operation. Because an electrical signal is often necessary, many of these tools are run on electric logging line.

Coil Tubing Operations

Coil tubing represents one of the biggest advances in well control and fluid spotting technology to be
developed in the last 30 years. Coiled tubing is a continuous string of steel tubing wound on a very
large diameter spool that can be run into a well without the necessity of making joint c o n n e ~ t i o n s . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Coiled tubing may be used for almost all aspects of workover operations including some wireline dominated work. Coiled tubing may be used in initiating or controlling flow,10 jetting out sand or fill in tubing or small diameter casing, drilling, packing off and isolating sections,ll performing stimulation
operations,12 running logging t o o 1 ~ ,conveying
~ ~ * ~ ~ perforating ~ y s t e m s and
~ operations in horizontal
holes.16
The size of the coiled tubing may range in size from 1 in. (25 mm) to 3-1/2 in. (89 mm) or larger. It is
run into the well using an injector head as shown in Figure 18.1 3. Blowout preventers and other pressure control equipment are available for the tubing. Coiled tubing offers many advantages over jointed
tubing in concentric operations that may range from economics to additional safety. Reduction in rig
time can be an advantage. Rig up of the equipment is approximately 1 hour and trip time (compared to
jointed tubing) is reduced because the tubing may be run at rates to 200 Wminute and pulled at the
rate of several hundred feet per minute, whereas 60 Wminute is a common speed for pulling jointed
tubing. The absence of joints in the tubing eliminates many potential leaks and some corrosion.
Coiled tubing was first used in well stimulation and damage removal for accurate spotting of gas and
liquids. Introduction of packers and plug assemblies for the coiled tubing has made selective break

18-9

Coi 1 ed tubing

Chain
Skate rams

B1 ind rams

B1 owout

Preventers
We1 1 head

Figure 18.13: Chain drive injector for coiled tubing.

down operations much easier and faster. Other tools have been developed for sleeve operation, spotting fluids, jet washing and other functions.
Chain Injector

The injection head, Figure 18.14, is the heart of the drive system for coiled tubing operations. The
injector head is a mechanical apparatus usually driven by chains and powered by hydraulic motors. It
provides the reaction force and the stability necessary for removal or insertion of the continuous tubing into or from a well. The injector provides all of the handling capabilities through a friction drive system. It controls the rate at which tubing is lowered into the well and acts as both slip and brake to spot
the tubing at any desired depth. In rare instances, it may be used to part the tubing string (although
better methods may be available).
The injector head consists of several individual components.
1. Most gripper blocks grip the tubing without causing significant damage. This block assembly
may be either grooved blocks (Figure 18.15) or a block for multiple sizes of tubing, such as the
deep V block, Figure 18.16. The blocks in the smaller size tubing are grooved to increase grip-

ping efficiency.
The forces on the set of gripper blocks are as shown in Figure 18.17.
F = pLNand the summation of vertical forces is

Z F = 2F- W or F

1/2W

substituting,

1/2W= pNor N =
p, the coefficient of friction is taken as 0.25.

18-10

W
-

2P

Figure 18.14: Coiled Tubing Injector System

[Drawing from Halliburton]

Figure 18.15: Grooved Gripper Blocks for Coiled

Tubing

If 8200 f (2500m) of 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) coiled tubing (0.109 in. or 2.77 m wall), is in the well

18-11

Figure 18.16: Deep V Design Gripper Block for

Handling Multiple Sizes of Coiled
Tubing
W = String Weight, Ibs

N = Normal Force (Force Imparted by

Beam Pressure), psi
p = Coefficient of Friction Between
Gripper Block and Tubing
F = Frictional Force (Holding Force), psi
COILED

TUBING

~ 1 0 . 2 ~ 1n-0.25

-N

GRIPPER BLOCK

W
Figure 18.17: Gripper Block Forces
[Drawing from Halliburton]

(open-ended, no buoyancy correction), the string weight is 13,276 Ib (6035 kg) and the force, N,
that must be applied to the grippers to hold the string in place is:

N=-=
2p

13276 lb
2(0.25)

26,550 lb (12,070 kg)

18-12

2. A linear beam and hydraulic cylinder arrangement provides uniform force on the back side of the

gripper chain and forces the grippers together. The hydraulic pressure applied to the gripper
blocks to produce the force N would be a function of the cylinder size. If a 50.9 in. cylinder area
(Halliburton 30,000 psi injector, for example) was used, then the hydraulic pressure would be:

p=z

26550psi
50.9 in.2

The gripper blocks must be treated as a set since the load producing hydraulic cylinders work
on all the grippers in contact with the tube. To apply the maximum force of the injector head, a
certain minimum number of grippers, or minimum gripper block length is needed. This minimum
length will change as tubing size and wall thickness change. In general, more gripper length is
needed for thinner wall tubing of the same OD and more gripper length is needed for increasing
tube ODs with the same wall thickness.
The string weight is not the only weight or force factor involved on the coiled tubing. Surface
wellhead pressure opposes movement of tubing into a well and the pressure sealing stripper
creates a frictional force that must be overcome to move pipe either direction. Figure 18.1 8
shows the opposing or compressive forces for 1 in. through 2 in. coiled tubing for a range of
wellhead pressures. The data in Figure 18.1 9 is to offset wellhead pressure only. The simple
equation is:
Force = Wellhead Pressure x Area of closed end tubing or, for a wellhead pressure of 5000 psi
1.5 in. tubing (Area = 1.767 in.2) requires a downward force (from the injector head) of
5000 psi x 1.767 in..2 = 8835 Ib, to push the first part of the tubing into the wall.

Figure 18.18: Axial Compressive Force on CT Due to WHP

[Newman & Allcorn, SPE 247931

If the stuffing box (or the stripping element in the BOP if closed around the tubing) adds a frictional force, for example, 2000 Ib, it must be added to the force the injector must provide to
have the tubing enter the well.

8835 + 2000 = 10,835 Ib (force downward)

As tubing is injected, the weight of the tubing below the injector helps pull the tubing into the
well. The downward force that the injector must provide steadily decreases as more tubing is

18-13

run in the well. The downward force (snubbing) requirement turns to an upward force (stripping)
requirement when the weight of tubing (plus inside fluids) exceeds the frictional and pressure
forces acting on the CT during operation (running). For this example of 5000 psi surface pressure and 2,000 psi friction in the stuffing box, the breakover (snubbing to stripping force) for
empty 1.5 in., 0.109 in. wall, 1.619 Ib/ft, would be:
in gas (dry coiled tubing)
l 0 9 835 lb
1.619 lb/ft

6692

In the unusual case of inserting dry tubing in a well full of 9 Ib/gal liquid: the buoyed weight, Wb,
would be (ignoring gas weight in CT):

Wb

W,[l+]

where:
W,
pf

= air weight of tube

= density of fluid in the well

= density of steel = 489.5 Ib/ft3 or 65.4 Ib/gal or 7.84 kg/l

ps
The buoyed weight reduces the weight helping to pull the tubing into the well. The tubing weight
becomes:

W,

1.619 (/b/ft)[ 1 -65.4lb/gd

lb/gal

1.4 lb/ft

The breakover point from snubbing to stripping is increased to:

10,835 lb
1.4 lb/ft

7739

In most cases, fluid is injected as the coiled tubing is run in a well. The injection helps equalize
pressures (lessens chances of tubing collapse). The fluid adds to the weight of the tubing based
on the volume of the coiled tubing.
For circulation of 9 Ib/gal brine through the example 1.5 in. coiled tubing (id = 1.291) in a well
filled with 9 Ib/gal brine:

Wt. brine in tubing

E ( 1.291/12)2[ ft2) (1 ft)

(9 lb/gal) (7.48 gal/ft3)

=

0.612 lb/ft

18-14

This is weight added (per foot) by filling with brine. The net weight per foot would be:

1.4 Ib/ft + 0.612 Ib/ft = 2.012 Ib/ft

or, the CT length to offset the 10,850 Ib force and begin stripping would be:

835 lb
2012 lb/ft

7' '

5385 ft

For the sake of the force example, if the tubing were run to 5385 ft in the 9 Ib/gal brine filled well
and the circulating fluid was switched from 9 Ib/gal brine to 16.4 Ib/gal cement, the force
required from the injector to hold the tubing would go from about 0 (balanced upward and downward forces) to:

-x (1.291112) (1 ft) (16.4 lb/gal) (7.48 gal/ft3)

4
=

1.12 lb/ft

Net wt.

1.4 lb/ft + 1.12 lb/ft

Force increase

2.52 lb/ft

( 5 , 385 ft) (2.52 lb/ft)

-10,835 lb

2,735 lb

As seen in the examples, the force needs will vary with well pressure, coiled tubing dimensions,
circulating fluid and well fluid densities. Frictional forces created by the flowing fluids (ignored
here) could also change the force loadings.
When the injector head opposes a large wellhead pressure, the coiled tubing section immediately below the injector head may have a tendency to buckle as shown in Figure 18.1 9. A buckling guide or brace in this area cuts down the amount of unsupported tube and reduces the
tendency to buckle, Figure 18.20.
Newman and Allcorn estimate the injector force to start buckling in the unsupported area just
below the injector head is 3,000 Ibf for 1.O in. CT, 6000 Ibf for 1.25 in. CT and 12,000 Ibf for
1.5 in. CT. The larger sizes of coiled tubing are stiffer and more easily resist this surface buckling, however; the pressure acting on the tubing when the tubing is started into a high pressure
well offsets this advantage. For a well with 5000 psi surface pressure, the pressure effect
opposing 1 in. tubing is 3926 Ib; for 1-1/2 in. tubing it is 8836 Ib; for 2-3/8 in. tubing, it is
22,150 Ib; and for 3-1/2 in. tubing it is 48,105 Ib. Clearly, the buckling below the injector can be
a severe problem any time there is high wellhead pressure. Buckling prevention supports
should be run in any unsupported area below the injector and above the stuffing box.
4

3. The injector system is fail safe for movement control. Valves on either side of the relief ports
close automatically when hydraulic pressure is released (due to a breakdown or other problem).
In this event, the systems close, and the chain stays wherever it was at the point of failure. This
holds the tubing until the problem can be corrected.

18-15

Figure 18.19
[Newman 8 Allcorn, SPE 247931
n

Figure 18.20
[Newman & Allcorn, SPE 247931
The hydraulic components and the roller chain are shown in Figure 18.21. Examples from Halliburton
show a low pressure system (38,000 psi) and a high pressure system (80,000 psi).
The weight indicator measures the coiled tubing hanging weight or the weight supported by the injector head. The reel produces an upward force (tension), reducing the reading on the weight indicator. If
there is an upward force created by the wellhead pressure (especially when only a small amount of
tubing is in the well), a one directional weight indicator would become inactive. For this reason, a dual
acting weight indicator-one that measures force in both directions-is recommended.
The guide arch or goose neck (Figure 18.22) sits above the chain injector head and guides the tubing
as it is unrolled from the reel into the injector head. The coiled tubing guide or goose neck is a curved
beam with a series of rollers which prevent crimping of the tube as it moves from a straight section
through a curve and into another straight section. The size of the goose neck will depend on the

18-16

Twin hydraulic
radial piston motors
with integral
f ailsafe braking

Load
cell

Tubing
guide

Figure 18.21: Components of the Injector Head

radius of tubing. Both 72 in. radius and 96 in. radius goose necks are common, with the 96 in. goose
neck being used for the larger diameters of tubing.

Figure 18.22 Tubing Guide or Gooseneck

The gooseneck or guidearch radius is very important since twice as many bending cycles occur here
as at the reel. Jhe tentative API specification recommends that the arch radius be at least 33 t imes
lhe coiled t & ) m m e t e r .
Because there is increasing use of tools in the coiled tubing string, attachment to the string becomes
a major point of concern. Since many tools are larger than the coiled tubing, they cannot pass through
the chain injector. The tools therefore must be attached beneath the injector. The use of an access
window, Figure 18.23, is common where there is a need to add most tools.
There are six requirements for adding larger diameter tools to the string.

18-17

Loz.
VALVE
CoLmTWlNa
MaR OOWL

CT CONNECTOR
QAS UPT YANDRa

CT CONNECTOR

Figure 18.23: Use of Access Window for Coupling

Equipment in a CT String
[Moore, World Oil, CT Symposium, 19941

1. An access window large enough to mount all equipment to be used in the string, accessible with

the tools to do the job. (Remember coupling length in the total tool length.)
2. An injector head above the window to hold and feed the tubing once the connection is made.

3. A valve or plug at the bottom of the CT to control backflow.

18-18

4. Slip and seal capacity in the BOPs below the window to hold the tubing hanging in the well prior
to cutting the tubing and to seal wellbore pressure.
5. A stripping/snubbing BOP setup that is long enough to snub the mounted tools into the well without loss of well control. The bore of the BOP must be large enough to pass the full diameter of
the tool mounted in the string.
6. Backup plates around the coiled tubing in the window are required to prevent buckling while
coiled tubing is being run into the well. The backup devices are needed when injection load
places the tubing in compression. Compression usually exists when tubing is started into a well
with a high surface pressure or anytime drag forces or friction forces opposing the injection of
the tubing exceed the downward string weight.

Connection of the tools or equipment in the coiled tubing string may be made by welding, threaded
coupling, or various types of compression fit or dimple couplers. The most common tools added to the
string in the window include seal assemblies, packers, subsurface safety valves, gas lift valves, mandrels and nipples of all types, and hanger heads similar to the one described in the section on coil tubing for production tubing.
Below the access window and chain injector head, a coiled tubing stuffing box, Figure 18.24, provides

a sealing connection before the tubing goes into the well. The units are usually spring loaded and
closed with hydraulic pressure. By applying hydraulic pressure, the operator is able to compress a
rubber packoff element and strip in or out of the hole under pressure. Replacement of the rubber element can be achieved in most tool designs by unscrewing the top and inserting a split element.
Packing
Nut

Energlring
Rubber
Sttipplng
Rubber
Plston

Well
Pressure
port

Figure 18.24: Cutaway of a Stuffing Box

Immediately below the stuffing box, the blowout preventers are positioned. These connect to the wellhead and provide the emergency control for the well. The typical BOP is a 4 RAM unit, which is
hydraulically operated and can be manually closed. From top down, the BOPs are:
1. Blind RAM

2. Tubing shear RAMS

18-19

3. Slip RAMs
4. Tubing (pipe) RAMs

Blind rams are designed to isolate pressure between the well and the surface. They work only when
the BOP bore is empty. Their mostly flat seal faces form a seal when opposing blind rams contact
each other. A pressure bypass to equalize pressure above and below the ram is required. The pressure bypass is required on any valve, plug or seal where opening against well pressure would damage
equipment. An equalizing valve is needed across all rams that have the ability to seal pressure: blind,
pipe and some shear rams.
Shear rams must have the capability of shearing the heaviest wall and highest yield strength of coiled
tubing at the highest possible wellhead pressure. The shear blades need to cut cleanly without crushing the tube. Shear rams must also work against maximum expected well pressure, as shown in
Figure 18.25.

r
: I

~~

(in.)

Wall
Thickness
(in.)

Pressure
Required
to Shear
5000 psi
WHP

Pressure
Required
to Shear
10,000 psi
WHP

1500
2400
1900
2100
2750

2056
2.956

2611
3511

1.50

0.1 09
0.134
0.1 09
0.125
0.1 34

2.456
2656
3306

3011
3211
3861

, II

~~

Pressure
Required
to Shear
0 psi
WHP

I
I

I
I
I

I
I

I
I

Figure 18.25:8(3lP Hydraulic System Pressure Required to Shear CT for a Typical 3

[Newman & Allcorn, SPE 247931

Slip rams support the weight of the pipe when needed. They must be capable of holding the maximum
weight expected without crushing the tube. Like all slips, holding heavy loads is more difficult when
the slips are engaged on hard steel such as P-110 or V-150.
Pipe rams seal around the tubing. They are always placed in the bottom cavity of a workover BOP.
Pipe rams are often provided in duplicate for safety and stripping.
Most BOPs are provided with a side outlet between the shear and the slip RAM, to allow returns or
pumping into the annulus, if necessary. A schematic of the RAM setup is shown in Figure 18.26. If the
coiled tubing is to be stripped through the stripping ram and high wear or hazardous service is
expected, dual strippers (or even multiple sets) may be used. The top stripper would be the continuous operations unit with the lower unit available for sealing while changing worn elements in the upper
unit.
Closing the rams must take into account the opposing wellbore pressures. If the construction of the
BOP is such that the hydraulic closing pressure works against the hydraulic piston diameter while the
wellhead pressure works against the connecting rod diameter, then the rod diameter effect must be
accounted for. In the event of a hydraulic supply system failure, accumulators are used to operate the
BOP system. The accumulators should be sized to deliver sufficient fluid to perform all BOP functions,
at the necessary pressures, for all four ram sets plus a 1 . 5 ~reserve. The closing ratio is:

18-20

Pressure port
Blind-Ram

Blind Rams
Shear Rams
Side Port
(Kill Port)
Slip Rams
Pipe Rams
Pipe-Ram Equalizing
Valve

Hydraulic Actuator
with Ram Position indicator

6
Figure 18.26: Minimum BOP Setup

[Newrnan & Allcorn, SPE 247931

where:
R
= closing ratio
D
= diameter of hydraulic piston
d
= diameter of connecting rod.
The minimum BOP stack in Figure 18.26 can be improved, both in versatility and safety by addition of
a circulation Tee or a cross below the main BOP quad stack. If a Tee or a cross is used, however, you
need to run a pipe ram below in case there is a problem with a valve in the line during any well control
operation. This type of BOP arrangement, Figure 18.27, is required by some companies and is highly
recommended. There is a caution, however, with closing the bottom pipe ram; it should only be done
when there is no other way to control the well. Once closed, pressure will rise and may create problems in control. A better method of control when using a circulating cross is to set up a valve
sequence such as Figure 18.28. In most cases, operations economics will not support developing
both sides unless the flow is corrosive, poisonous, erosive or in a sensitive (politically or environmentally) area. At the least, when using a circulating cross, develop one side for control and place at least
one valve on the other side so that the unused side can be developed quickly if needed.
Head space limitations must be checked before specifying the BOP system on the well. Head space is
most critical on platforms with very limited space between wellheads and upper decks.
The API recommends tests on well control equipment as:
1. Upon installation.
2. At least once every seven days when installed.
3. Following any action that requires disconnecting a pressure seal in a well control component.
4. Prior to well testing operations.
A low pressure test to 200 or 300 psi usually precedes the high pressure test. Test time at the high pressure requires a hold time of 10 minutes. The maximum test pressure is usually 70% of working pressure
unless the working pressure is far above the maximum pressure of the well. The minimum pressure is the
maximum pressure of the well.

18-21

PipelSlip Combo Ram

Figure 18.27: An Improved System for CT Use Incorporating a

Circulating Tee and a Lower Pipe Ram

Standard CT BOP

Unused Side +
Ready for
Development
if Needed

Circulatina
Cross

+To

Choke

L PlpdSllp Comblnatlon Ram

Figure 18.28: Coiled Tubing SOP and Circulating Control

Setup for High Pressure or Dangerous Wells

In high pressure or severely corrosive wells, two strippers above an annular well control component may
be set above the standard quad BOP.
When assembling pressure control equipment, ring gaskets should not be reused.
The reel assembly, Figure 18.29, is a large diameter steel drum that is shaft mounted and is powered
by a bidirectional hydraulic motor. The drive system powering the reel must be able to take up tubing
faster, regardless of amount of tubing on the spool, than the maximum speed of the injector head. The
reel drive must supply enough torque at maximum injector head speed to bend the tubing around the
goose neck.
A device called a levelwind is used to smoothly space the coiled tubing on and off the reel.

18-22

Figure 18.29: Skid Mounted Reel.

Even though the coiled tubing is spooled on a large reel or drum, the tubing still yields. For any grade
of tubing, the bend radius that will produce yielding is

(D/2)/Sy

where:
R
= bend radius, ft
E
= plastic modulus, 30 x 1O6
D
= tubing diameter, in.
= yield strength
Sy
The yield producing bending radii for several sizes are shown in Figure 18.30.

(in.)
1.oo

2.00

36

2.375

42

Figure 18.30

18-23

Coiled Tubing
Specified OD
(inches)

Radius
RY
(inches)

Size Range
Reel Core
RreeI
(inches)

0.75
1.oo
1.25

161
214
268

24
30
36

48
48-54
48-72

1.75

375

48

72-96

2.00

429

48

72-96

2.375

509

54

96-108

2.875

616

54

96-108

3.50

750

65

Tube OD

Size Range
Tubing Guide
Rtg

(i nches)

Core Diameter

Width

Approximate
Capacity

96

148

18,000

96-120

1.75

L - IArC)ABK

/ F=F-ard

where

-.
--

tubing capcity ( f t )
tubing stack height [not including
(in1
B I width betwen flange8 [in)
C
reel drum core diameter (in)
K K value for difierent tubing air;+.

L
A

Fl

C
1.00

0.262

1.25

0.168

1.50

0.116

2.00
2.375

0.0462

0.0214

2.875
3.50

0.066

0.0317

Winding large coiled tubing onto a spool with too small of a core will permanently yield the tubing,
causing rapid failure. Core diameters of the reels are usually 44 to 48 times the CT diameter. This is a
guide for CT spools that will be reeled repeatedly.
From the previous data, it is obvious that the pipe yields each time it is spooled on to the 2 ft to 4 ft
radius storage coils or passes over the goose neck. In fact, there are a minimum of six bending events
that produce yielding in the tube on each round trip of the coil.
The sequence of bending forces is shown in Figure 18.32. A detailed look at the entire process for one
half of the cycle, Figure 18.33, shows even more stresses. Addition of pressure to these forces greatly

18-24

amplifies the distortion (swell) in the tubing and increases the likelihood of failure of the string. Most
good coiled tubing life monitoring programs try to track and account for both bending and pressure
history. The fatigue produced by bending and pressure will be discussed in the section on modeling.

Figure 18.32

STRESS VS; STRAIN

tension

0 Before Spooling
1 -OnReel
2 Urmpooled Between
Reel and Gooseneck
3 -OnGooseneck
4 -Between Gooseneck

- and Injector

5 Downhole

COILED TUBING

Figure 18.33
The force needed to bend the coiled tubing onto the reel increases exponentially with the coiled tubing
diameter. The force to bend 3-1/2in. coiled tubing is nearly 10 times the force needed to bend 2 in.
CT.
Depth control is available from wheeled (friction) monitoring, and other types of monitoring, which will work
on surface pipe movement. Problems of stretch in the tubing under load may make wheel measurements a
secondary source of depth control; corrected by stretch calculations or CCL logs (when logging is run on
CT).
Axial Load Capacity

The one-dimensional axial load capacity of the tubing is considered to be the tension load that will
produce a stress in the tubing equal to the minimum yield,

18-25

L,

s/

where:
= tubing load capacity at yield, Ibs
L,,
Su = yield strength of tubing, psi
A
= cross-sectional area of the tubing, in.*
For a 1.5 in., 0.1 09 wall tube of 70,000 psi yield steel, the one-dimensional load capacity at yield is:

L,= 70,000x 0.476 = 33,320Ib

A number of influences might cause the tube to part before this load, including defects, uneven loading, and wear. In addition, the one-dimensional load capacity equation does not account for the effects
of internal and external pressure on yield.

Factors that would increase load capacity are those that increase yield strength. Increasing the wall
thickness will also increase load capacity, but will also increase tubing weight, partially offsetting the
gain in load capacity.
Because of the potential strength reduction by defects and use, 80% of capacity at yield is often used
for work.
The individual stresses on coiled tubing are dependent on several factors within the well. The maximum axial stress, as pointed out earlier, occurs just below the injector head and is described by the
injector hoisting load for applications in tension. An additional axial load may be imparted by pump
pressure against closed-in tubing or where frictional resistance to fluid flow is high.

where:
axial stress, psi
hoisting load, Ib
Q
metal wall area, in.2
A
inside cross-sectional area, in.2
Ai
P
internal tubing pressure, psi
h
1 if tubing is closed; 0 if tubing is open
M
0.25 a2/(a-1)
a
Dl t
D
outside diameter
wall thickness
t
The second component goes to zero when h = 0 (open-ended tubing or tubing with just a check
valve). When friction pressure is significant, add the total friction loss in place of the (PA/A)hterm.
01

The axial force is also opposed by buoyancy of the fluid (calculatable) and friction or drag of the outside of the CT with the casing or openhole (estimatable on a case-by-case basis). The axial force is
the main force in depth limitation calculations, however, the axial effect on tube collapse rating can be

18-26

critical when the CT has external pressure applied. Collapse is one of the more common CT failure
mechanisms. (It must be noted, however, that overall collapse or failure incidence for coiled tubing is
very low.)

Depth Limitations
The depth to which tubing can be worked or placed depends upon yield strength, loads, internal pressure, and friction caused by deviation of the well. In vertical wells, the depth capacity is typically derated by a safety factor to the point where its weight in air is 80% of the load capacity of the tubing,

where:
Le

= equivalent string length, ft

L80% =

80% of tubing load capacity, Ib

W
= tubing weight, Ibs/ft
Examples of the use of this equation for 70,000psi yield tubing and 100,000 psi tubing are shown in
the table below.
The 80% yield load (based on wall area of CT), for 70,000 psi yield, 1.5 in. tubing with a 0.095 in. wall
is

(.80)(70,000)(1
.52-1.312)d4 = 23,482Ibs

1
1
1E1 1
Weld

Maximum
8O%Yield

;e&ht

(mm)

(38.1)

1.5
(38.1)
1.5
(38.1)

(mm)

0.095
(2.41)
0.109
(2.77)
0.134
(3.40)

Fii

Str;m$h
LEd
(kg/m)
(kW
(kg)
1.426
70,000 23,482
(2.123) (482,312) (10,673)

String
Length
in air

16,466
(5,027)
16,474

1.619
70,000 26,672
(2.410) (482,312) (12,124)
1.955
70,000 32,200
(2.909) (482,312) (14.636) (5.031)

23,536

(7,169)

Figure 18.34: Depth (length) limits of 1.5 in. CT

As can be seen in the final column of Figure 18.34,on equivalent string length, increasing wall thickness of a uniform tube has 1 1 benefit
~
in allowing the tube to work deeper. Only the tensile yield
strength has an effect on depth capacity. Thus the depth limit is really a function of yield and density of
material:

18-27

Le

80
12P
%

where:
Ss,-,% = maximum allowable tensile stress (80% of yield), psi
p

= density, Ib/in.3 (0.283 Ib/in.3 for steel)

It must be understood that any calculation of any pressure, depth or other factor is a function of the
present condition of the coiled tubing. Any type of damage, corrosion, wear, etc. dramatically reduces
the strength.
The equivalent string lengths for 70,000; 80,000; and 100,000psi yield tubings can be calculated as
16,490 ft; 18,845 ft; and 23,557ft, respectively. Thus, an increase in steel yield from 70,000 psi to
100,000 psi yields a 43% increase in working depth.
The previous calculations are heavily simplified. They apply only to new tubing without defects or
wear. The effect of buoyancy can extend the working depth limit of the coiled tubing. If the well is full
of fluid, the formula for maximum length becomes:

80%
Le =

12(p-p,)

where:
p
pm

= tube density (Ib/in.3) in air

= fluid density, Ib/in.3

The conversion from Ib/gal to Ib/in.3 involves multiplication of the mud weight by 0.00432. In a case
where the well is completely filled with a 10 Ib/gal brine (0.0432 Ib/im3), the 16,466 ft depth limit for
1.5 in. (0.095 in. wall) tubing with 70,000 psi yield becomes:

L,
I

(70,000 x 0.80)
I

12 (0.283 - 0.0432) /b/in.

18,681 ft

The 2215 ft increase in working depth is directly attributabte to buoyancy. If the well is only partially
filled with liquid, the effects of buoyancy are lessened.

Buoyancy
The effect of buoyancy on coiled tubing is the same as on casing or jointed tubing.
Buoyant weight, Wb, for an open-ended tube of air weight, W,, filled and surrounded by one fluid is:

w,

w,[1-y

where:

18-28

pr

= density of the fluid

= density of steel, 489.5 Ib/ft3 or 65.4 Ib/gal

ps
When the fluid in the tube is different from the fluid outside the tube, the volume contained inside the
tube and the volume of fluid displaced by the tube must be calculated and the weights summed
against the air weight of the tube. For the case of cementing through coiled tubing, in a light weight
annular fluid, the additional weight can be severe and may cause problems. For example, with a
1.5 in. coiled tubing of 70,000 psi steel with a 0.1 09 wall at a depth of 10,000 ft and filled with
16.4 Ib/gal cement in a well with 9 Ib/gal brine, the weights change is

Wa= (10,000 ft) (1.619 Ib/ft) = 16,190 Ib

displaced annular fluid

54 ('0.D.)

(Depth)

-( -)

n 1.5 (10, OOO), ft3

4 1.2

123 ft3

Weight of annular fluid displaced = (123 ft3) x (9 Ib/gal) (7.48 gal/ft3) = 8280 Ib.
For an empty (unpressurized nitrogen gas weight ignored) string of CT, the weight at the surface
would be:

load = 16,190 Ib - 8280 Ib - 7909 Ib

But, with cement fill inside (using an ID of 1.282 in.),

Wt cement

-"(
1'282)2 (10,000 ft) (16.4 lb/gal)
4 12

(7.48 gal/ft3)

10,996 lb

The buoyed weight of the tube is then

= (16,190

Ib) + (10,996 Ib) - (7909 Ib) = 19,277 Ib

As a check on tensile strength, use the formula for effective string length, Le, to determine if the
10,000 ft length is feasible. The weight per foot is simply the buoyed weight divided by the length of
the tubing. The formula gives the maximum string length that would be possible under these conditions. The calculation is:

L,O%

Le

Weight per foot

18-29

Le =

(26,672 lb)
(19,277 lb110,OOO ft)

Le

13,836 ft

The job is possible.

The weight of pressurized nitrogen, when running a nitrogen gas filled string cannot be ignored as the
upper limits of tensile stress are neared. When needed, the nitrogen weight at any pressure can be
estimated from Figure 2 for nitrogen (Figure 3 for carbon dioxide). More accurate information is available from computer programs operated by the gas supply firms. Hydrostatic information on commingled fluids is available at the end of this section.

Tapered Strings
Tapering a CT string with smaller OD, lighter weight tubing at the bottom or with larger ID tubing
(lighter weight) at the bottom can substantially increase the maximum effective working depth. The
advantage of thinner wall or smaller OD tubing on bottom is a reduction in string weight and the resultant increase in working depth. The disadvantages are reduced ID near bottom if a smaller OD string is
used (more friction pressure during pumping), or reduced collapse resistance if a thinner wall string
(constant OD, thinner wall) is used.
A tapered string is an alternative to higher yield steel in the tubing. Cost of the tubing, necessary working depth, repeated need for the special string and weld quality (in the tapered string) are all considerations. Field made tapered strings with butt weld connections are inferior to strings made in the mill
with bias welds and tapered transitions between the plate (wall) thicknesses. The constant OD strings
are the most useful at the present time due to the inability of most injector heads to handle multiple
ODs without stopping to change the gripper blocks.
For a tapered string, the maximum theoretical working depth will depend on the weight, length, and
strength of each segment. To check an existing tapered string, calculate the maximum working length
of each string segment. As an example, the lengths in the 1.5 in. OD tapered string of 70,000 psi yield
steel are considered in the example. Only the length of the upper string, Section 3, will be calculated.
The easiest solution is tabular. The sum of the lengths must not exceed the maximum working length
and the sum of the weights must not exceed the 80% load yield value (46,100 x 0.8 = 36,880 Ib) of the
shallowest section (Section 3).

deepest

Length

lblft

L1

1.426
1.619
2.239

L2

shallowest

L3

Le

Weight
=

Wl

=
=

w2

w3

WT

18-30

Filling in the table,

Length

Ib/ft

Weight

4500

8000

1.426
1.619

6,417Ib
12,952 Ib

L3

2.239

W3

36,880 Ib

Li3

W3 is then 17,511 Ib, L3 is 7821 ft and Le (total) is 20,321 ft. The L3 of 7821 is the maximum length of
the heavy wall (0.156 in.) tubing that can hang below the injector head.

Compare the maximum total length of 20,321 ft of the tapered string with a string length of 16,472 ft
for the 1.5 in. OD heavy wall CT tube length.

L e = -36y
= 880
2.239

16,472 ft

there are also the disadvantages of

The advantages of the tapered string become clear quickly
reduced collapse resistance in the lower section and in weld difficulties in field preparation of a
tapered string. The alternative use of a higher yield steel results in longer working length (23,557 ft for
100,000 psi yield pipe), but at a higher price.

Buckling
When a long, thin tube is placed in (effective) compression, the tube will buckle. Coiled tubing can
buckle whenever frictional drag forces (between the outside of the tube and the casing or openhole
wall) exceed the force needed to bend the tubing. Sinusoidal buckling occurs first, followed by helical
buckling. Formation of the sinusoid probably occurs at the first drag point of the tool string as the long,
thin, unsupported tube is caught between opposing forces at the friction point and the injector (imagine pushing a weight with a small diameter piece of wire). During this time, the downhole tool (or end
of the tube) may stop but the injector is still pushing tubing into the well. The weight indicator should
register a change. The tube will now touch the wall at several places and friction will increase. The
pipe ultimately forms a helical or spring-like spiral. Thrust loads at the surface increase sharply and
the coiled tubing is said to lock up. If the injection is not stopped, the pipe may fail by shear or may
collapse and then shear off. Examples of sinusoidal and helical buckling are shown in Figure 18.35.
More buckling problems will be found in openholes than in cased holes (result of drag differences).
Buckling is more severe where small tubing is used in large holes or large tubulars. Helical buckling
can occur easier in larger diameter holes.
Increasing pipe stiffness or rigidity through higher strength pipe or heavier wall, or by pressuring up on
the tube if it is close ended, should reduce the tendency to buckle.
Most coiled tubing service companies have computer models that help predict reach of CT in a deviated well. More information is contained in the section on penetration.

Capacity and Displacement

Capacity and displacement are given by the following formulas:
Capacity = Unit volume of fluid contained inside of coiled tubing.

18-31

Coiled tubing can buckle in sinusoidal or helical configurations when subjected to excessive compressional load8
Inside cased w own holes.

Figure 18.35

0.0009714

- c?

where:

V
d

= Coiled tubing capacity per foot (Bbls/ft)

= Inside diameter (inches)

Displacement = Equivalent unit volume of fluid that will be displaced by the cross-sectional area of
the coiled tubing body upon insertion into a filled well.

DP

0.0009714

- (0'-c?)

where:
=Coiled tubing body displacement per foot (Bbldft)
D
=Outside diameter (inches)
d
=Inside diameter (inches)
External Displacement = Equivalent unit volume of fluid that will be displaced by insertion of a
closed-end string of coiled tubing into a filled well.

Dp

D,

0.0009714.0'

18-32

where:
= Coiled tubing body displacement per foot (Bbls/ft)
D,
D
= Outside diameter (inches)
An unloading operation with nitrogen may be designed for continuous or intermittent operation. The
most effective method of initiating underbalance is to inject N2 while running in the well. This technique lightens the column, allowing the well to unload gradually. The nitrogen gas injection rates are
set to overcome hydrostatic pressure at the end of the tubing as the tubing is run into the well. This
means that required rate of gas, measured in scf, will steadily increase. When running through fresh
water at 100 Wmin, a 1-1/4 in. CT with a 15 bbl total volume (fillup volume of the entire coil of the CT)
must have a nitrogen gas injection of over 250 scfm just to keep the gas
the end of the CT (offsets pressure compression effects). Displacing gas from the tubing and initiating gas lift requires gas
injection over the CT fill rate of 250 scfm.

Once N2 injection pressure overcomes the pressure of the hydrostatic head of the liquid, the gas functions as a single point gas injection valve, Figure 18.36. As the fluid column is lightened, flow from the
well may be initiated and adjustments to the N2 flow rate may be necessary. Typically, as the depth
increases for any constant density gas-cut head, more gas is required to maintain lift. A starting N2
injection of 150 to 250 standard cubic feet per minute is usually adequate at shallow depths. The rate
should be increased until flow is attained at surface. As the well unloads then the N2 rate can and
should be reduced. If the N2 rate is higher than needed, the annular friction pressure will be high. The
status of the head of fluid above the tubing can be monitored by noting the relative rates of gas and
liquid. If the gas vented at the surface appears to be increasing (with a constant gas injection rate),
then more liquid is being evacuated from the tubing than is flowing into the tubing.

Figure 18.36: Fluid Unloading Operation

Coiled Tubing and Nitrogen

Using

[Sas-Jaworsky, World Oil, 19921

The reasons for designing an unloading treatment and sticking to the design are outlined in the following sentences. A well designed program will avoid creating uphole and downhole pressure shocks that

result when a well flows in slug flow. If flow is less than expected and the well has been substantially
unloaded, the problem may be damage or another feed-in problem that requires attention.
In nitrogen gas lift, the annular clearance may dictate many conditions of the treatment, For small
clearances such as 1-1/4 CT in 2-3/8 in. tubing, the typical 0.35 in. annulus creates high friction drop.
If nitrogen gas is injected at a fast rate, the back pressure (caused by annular friction) of lifting water
and gas may exceed the pay zone pore pressure and gas may enter the formation. In extreme cases,
the formation may even be fractured if the total BHP exceeds the fracture initiation pressure. When
circulating losses are noted, control injection pressure to prevent fracturing and cease gas injection
periodically to allow formation unloading and possible flow.
When annular clearance is large, such as with small CT in large diameter tubing, or even 1-1/2 in. CT
in casing, the liquid fallback will interfere with unloading. In these large annulus cases, occasional
slugs of foaming surfactants injected with the gas through the coil are useful to tie the liquid up in a
foam.
In marginally consolidated formations, the drawdown should be applied gradually and held at whatever minimum value was set during the design phase. Slug flow in this environment should be minimized. One of the trigger mechanisms for sand production is a rapid change in pressure differential.
If sand is produced to the surface during an unloading job, DO NOT stop circulating; stopping or
severely curtailing circulation may allow the sand in the annulus to fall back and form a bridge. When
sand is produced, continue circulating at that rate for 1.5 times the calculated bottoms up time (see
Sand Washing section) or, if the net rise rate of the sand is known, use a circulating time sufficient to
clear the annulus. Sand production at a constant flow rate usually stops or decreases rapidly within a
few minutes of the start of sand production unless the failure point of the formation has been reached.
The failure point is marked by continuous sand production. If sand production has not significantly
slowed by the end of the calculated bottoms-up time, start running the CT a o f the well while maintaining circulation. When sand production stops, hold the CT at a constant depth and maintain circulation for 2 annular volumes. When satisfied that the sand has been cleared from the annulus, reduce
circulation rate to a value below the rate that caused sand production. Ease back into the well and tag
any fill. Clean out the fill at the lower rate if possible or use an alternate fluid such as brine or foam.
When cleaning out fill in a zone that is suspected of producing sand, periodically pick up the CT and
circulate until sand is cleared. By easing back into the surface of the fill (while circulating), changes in
the sand top can be detected. For more information on sand removal, see the section on sand washing.

The problem of unloading solids from the well is made more difficult in highly deviated (over 200) wells
or where the coiled tubing 0.d. is small compared to the casing i.d. Cleanouts become steadily more
difficult as the ratio of CT-id-to-annular-od increases to values over 3.5 (2 CT in 7 casing). The problem is one of flowing enough gas through the CT to generate sufficient velocity in the annulus to lift the
sand. Foaming the fluid is a typical approach to solving the problem.
The purpose of nitrogen or carbon dioxide gas injection is to create underbalance so that a well can
flow. When the dead fluid is removed, the produced fluids may be able to flow on their own if sufficient reservoir pressure (and/or natural gas volume) is available. Estimation of the nitrogen gas rate
necessary for kicking a well off requires an estimation of the wells ability to flow. The following Darcy
equation is the normal starting place, U the h, or height, in the formation assumes constant permeability.

where:

18-34

= calculated fluid production rate, BPD

= formation permeability to the produced fluid, md
= formation height, ft

Qf
k
h
Pe
Pd
rn
B
re

= drainage radius

r,

= wellbore radius

= formation pressure (original or at the drainage radius), psia

= flowing BHP, psia
= produced fluid viscosity, cp
= formation volume factor, FVF

S
= near wellbore skin factor
In the equation, the values of several of the variables may vary widely from reservoir to laboratory
measurements. Permeability, k should be the permeability to the flowing fluid, not the absolute permeability from a core test. The estimate of h must reflect the thickness of quality pay that averages the
permeability value used. A kh from a buildup test in a similar well in the field may be a good starting
point. A curve such as Figure 18.37 is drawn from the data from the Darcy equation, IPR (inflow
potential relationship), or flowing BHP tests. PI can be estimated from this data.

Figure 18.37: Hagedorn & Brown Curve

[Sas-Jaworsky, World Oil, 19921

The equation for Vogels curve is:

-=

Qfnlax
Qf

1-0.20[ %)-o.*(
pw f

'Pwf

For any flow rate, there is some potential that the well will flow to the surface. A multiphase vertical
flow program is needed to predict flowing fluid head and frictional pressure loss. Input includes tubing
ID, produced fluid specific gravity and Gas Liquid Ratio (GLR). An example curve (solution from Hagedorn and Brown) is shown in Figure 18.38.

18-35

Producaionrate

8ooboPd
600 &hbl
350 API
o a s ~ g r a v i t y 0.65
Average flowing temp. 140 O F

- oil oravity

G ~ sliquid ratio

Figure 18.38: Flowing pressure gradient curve

for a 10,000 ft TVD well producing
800 bopd (35' API gravity) with a
600 scflbbl GLR (developed from
Hagedorn and Brown multi-phase
vertical flow correlations).
[Sas-Jaworsky, World Oil, 19921

Besides the underbalance creating effects of gas injection, the physical presence of coiled tubing in
the tubing or casing reduces the area of the normal flow path, increasing the resultant flow velocities.
As insignificant as this seems, a well that is flowing under this system, even without the added help of
injected gas, may cease to flow after the tubing has been removed. Wells that behave in this manner
are candidates for stimulation if damaged or may be helped by a velocity string of a smaller id tubing.
Gas is not the only fluid that can be used in this case. in wells where the unloading of a heavy brine is
necessary to bring the well on, a lighter liquid may be used for displacement.
Pulling the coiled tubing out of the well removes hydrostatic head since it lessens the volume by the
displacement based on the coil OD. In other words, reeling out of the well creates a swabbing action.
In a 1-1/4 in. coil, for example, displacement is 1.52 bbl/l000 ft and, assuming a tubing removal (reel-

18-36

ing out of the well) rate of 60 ft per minute, the displacement removed is about 0.091 bbl/min (or a rate
of about 131 BPD).
The place or depth in the well where gas is applied also makes a great deal of difference on liquid produced for gas volume injected. Examples of circulation points for 1 in. and 1-1/4in. CT at 200 scf/min
and 400 scf/min are shown in Figure 18.39.

1.800

lhCT w i w Sdpm
1 llcin. CI w 1 w .ctrm

Figure 18.39: Multi-phase liquid flow potential versus length of 1 in. and 1-114 in. OD
coiled tubing inside 2-7/8 in. OD production tubing (2.441 in. ID) for a
500 psig drawdown. (Courtesy of
Nowsco Well Service Ltd.)
[Sas-Jaworsky, World Oil, 19921

The mechanical considerations for unloading include:

1. Available nitrogen rate, volume, and pressure limitations.
2. Completion type (gravel pack, frac, natural, limited entry, etc.).

3. Formation competence.
4. Workover or production tubing size.

5. Surface equipment pressure and rate limits.

6. Foam creatiodbreaking problem with the produced fluids.

The N2 equipment must have the minimum actual rate capability to allow gas lift of the liquid at the
expected flow rate of the well to the design depth. The rate is useful only if it can be delivered at a
pressure high enough to overcome hydrostatic and flowing frictional forces. The volume available

18-37

should be at least 50% over the volume needed for the job if the job variables are unknown (volume
excesses may be tempered by experience in the field).
The completion type may determine the pressure at which the well may be unloaded. Friable or marginally consolidated sands must be unloaded gradually and some back pressure may be needed. In
most weak sands, drawdown may range from 250 to about 1000 psi. In well consolidated formations,
the drawdown is not limited by consolidation. Plastic consolidated or gravel packed completions may
have a field-experience drawdown limit. Fractured formations that may loose proppant in the near
wellbore area may also need a limit on drawdown or elimination of slug flow.
Workover or production tubing determines frictional head and the correct velocity to minimize gas slippage. As tubing ID increases, fluid velocity in the CT/tubing annulus decreases and slippage of gas
past the liquid increases. Multiphase flow correlations for tubing size selection may be used to determine flow behavior and expected friction:
Surface equipment and flow line sizes may also be a factor in fluid backflow. Vessels that were satisfactory for liquid and low volume gas production may have problems handling the slug flow or the
higher gas rates common in N2 unloading. A nodal analysis program is often useful in modeling
behaviors. A diverter in the BOP stack is required in most cases as a bypass.
Creation of foam is a problem that may require special attention. Foams in stimulation fluid backflow
are often planned as a method of removing solids from the well. Foams may also occur on backflow of
spent acids and brine because many of the surfactants used in stimulations will create foams when
gas and sufficient pressure drop (energy) are available. The effects of surfactants and mutual solvents
are variable on creation or breaking foams. Inhibitors, some emulsifiers, soaps and foamers stabilize
foams while alcohols and Some surface tension lowering surfactants break foams. Mutual solvents
that create foam on backflow (at low concentrations) include EGMBE and most micellar type surfactants. Diesel is one of the worst foamer creators. Alcohol based mutual solvents such as A-Sol, Super
A-Sol and A-Sol P-38 break most foams. Foams created in crude oil are usually the result of naturally
occurring organic acids. The nitrogen or carbon dioxide gas in the lift process provides both the gas
volume and the energy for most foams.
Emulsions on backflow are also common. Most emulsion problems cease when the pH of the backflowed fluids rise above 6. Treatment of emulsions is usually by surfactants. An alternate treatment
injects Super A-Sol at the wellhead at 2 to 10 liters per hour, depending on well flow rate, and uses the
lead line as a mixing vessel. Treatment can usually be discontinued when the pH rises above 5.
The quantity of nitrogen required to lift a column of liquid depends on:
1. load liquid density

2. dissolved gas in the load liquid

3. tubular (annular) volume to surface

4. maximum rate of liquid flow or volume of liquid in the case of brine cleaning
5. BHP
6. depth of the well

The problems are greatly simplified if the nitrogen is being used to reduce the hydrostatic head so the
well will flow. In this case the bottom hole pressure may not be adequate to lift a column of dead liquid but the well may flow with a lighter hydrostatic of a gas cut column. The technique is useful for
kicking off a well that has loaded up and died or to achieve higher drawdown on a well flow test or

18-38

cleanup. Typical unloading operations use about 500 scf/bbl, more in large volume annulus or casing,
less in smaller annulus areas.
If, for example, a 10,000 ft well loaded with a 10 Ib/gal fluid needs 2000 psi of hydrostatic pressure
removed to flow, a chart such as on page 58 can be used to calculate the minimum needed depth to
inject nitrogen. The fluid in the well is 0 scflbbl and the target is 500 scf/bbl. On page 62, locate the
point in the set of curves where the 0 scf/bbl and the 500 scf/bbl are 2000 psi apart (vertical separation in this figure). The depth is roughly 6000 ft. The value is from the curve for 10 Ib/gal brine with a
thermal gradient of 1.1 O F 1 1 00 ft.

Well displacement examples.

A 10,000 ft well is loaded with 8.5 Ib/gal completion fluid. The 3-1/2 in. tubing (9.3 Ib/ft) is run to
9,000 ft in 7 in., 23 Ib/ft casing. A coiled tubing unit with 15,000 ft of 1-1/2 in. (0.109in. wall) is to be
used for the job.

1 BHP = (8.5 Ib/gal) (0.052 gal/ft-in.2) x 10,000ft

BHP = 4420 psi,
2. WHP is determined from chart interpretation starting with the BHP. Round up BHP to 4500 psi
and from pages 59 and 82,the WHP is estimated as 3420 psi with a V'N (standard volume
gadactual volume gas) volume factor of 1200 scf/bbl.
The coiled tubing volume is: (15,000 ft) (0.001 597 bbls/ft) = 24 bbls
The volume in the CT in the well: (10,000 ft) (0.001 597 bbls/ft) = 16 bbls
The volume in the CT on the reel: (5000 ft) (0.001597 bbls/ft) = 8 bbls
The volume in the CT/Tubing annulus: (9000 ft) (0.0065 bbls/ft) = 58.5 bbls
The volume in the CTKasing annulus: (1000 ft) (0.0372 bbls/ft) = 37.2 bbls
The total annulus volume is 58.5

+ 37.2 = 95.7

bbls

N2 to displace the C T
N2 for CT in the well = (16 bbl) (1205 scf/bbl)
N2 for CT on the reel = 8 bbl
This occurs at a depth reading of about 5900 ft. The end of the tubing would need to be at 5900 ft and
the nitrogen surface injection rate to produce 500 scf/bbl would be:
N2 rate = (CT running rate) (tubing volume factor) (500 scf/bbl)
At a CT insertion speed of 100 Wmin using 1.5 in. (0.109 in. wall) tubing would produce the following:

N2 rate = (100 Wmin) (0.001597 bbl/ft) (500 scflbbl)

N2 rate = 80 scf/min

18-39

If the nitrogen injection began as the tubing entered the fluid and continued until 5900 ft was reached,
the total N2 needed to just kick the well off would be:

'N2vol= total CT depth x nitrogen injection rate

CT running rate

'N,

V O ~=

5'
ft x (80 scf/min)
100 ft/min

4720 S

C ~

Since N2 is used during cool down of the N2 transport and probably for some time after the well starts
to flow, a larger volume of nitrogen gas would be needed, probably 7500 to 10,000 scf.

Fluid Unloading in Casing

When there is no production tubing in the well, unloading liquids or solids can be extremely difficult. In
wells with large diameter casing and conventional coiled tubing, such as 1-1/2 in. OD, examples have
been seen where only a mist of fluid is recovered at the surface while pumping continually with nitrogen. In once instance, one entire transport of nitrogen was pumped into a well with 8-5/8 in. casing
using 1.5 in. coiled tubing without recovering significant liquids even though the well was almost completely loaded with liquid.
In the instance of large casing without tubing, it has been found that using a foamer and a small
amount of liquid with the nitrogen provided very good unloading capability, even in deviated holes.
When foam was used, less than 112 the nitrogen was needed as required in the unsuccessful attempt
in the 8-5/8 in. casing that used only nitrogen.
Removal of sand and other small debris was one of the original uses of coiled tubing in the oil industry. CT has been used to clean sand from casing up to 11-5/8in. and depths of over 16,000 ft.
The first step in removing sand from a wellbore is loosening sand by washing or jetting. Increasing the
ability of the fluid to pick up debris is accomplished by increasing the turbulence. Increasing the lift
capacity for circulating the debris out of the well can be accomplished by increasing viscosity or flow
rate. To generate lift, the annular fluid velocity must exceed the particle settling velocity.
Annular velocity and tubing velocities can be calculated with the formulas:

tube

V - 1,020 Q

annulus

Q
V = 1,020
2
D,- D i

where:
V
Q

= flow rate, ft/min

= fluid pump rate, BPM

18-40

Dc
Dtj

= coiled tube OD, in.

Dcj

= coiled tube ID, in.

= id of the production/work string, in.

When the flowing fluid is a compressible gas, the velocity increases from the highest pressure point
(usually bottom hole) toward the lowest pressure (usually the surface). Particle settling depends on
the shape, size and density of the material. Figure 1 gives sand settling velocities (in ft per second) for
various sizes of sand for a range of fluid viscosities. The circulating velocity should be about twice the
particle setting velocity.
If the CT is run open-ended, the circulating fluid will tend to flow up around the tubing, leaving the
sand to settle at the walls of the casing. This problem is especially apparent in large diameter casing.
To better apply the circulation energy, both in sand pickup and carrying capacity, jetting nozzles of up
to 3/32 in. are sometimes used. The velocity of the fluid at the jet nozzle is up to 200 ft/sec but the friction pressure may claim 500 to 1500 psi of the available pressure.

A variety of nozzle designs are used depending upon type of cleanout, hardness of fill, diameter of
casing and needed flow rate. The fluids used can be slick water, foam, acid or gas.

Rotation of coiled tubing tools is limited but can be accomplished by mud motors, impact tools with
ratcheting mechanisms or fluid powered jetting. The mud motors are positive displacement tools that
rotate in response to flow of pumped fluids (gas or liquids). A section of this book highlights this information. The rotating jars also are fluid powered and provide impact force and rotation (see the section
on Tools). Rotating or fixed jetting tools and nozzles use hydraulic force.
The bottomhole circulating pressure should be about the same as the bottomhole pressure. The BHP
and friction pressure relationships are defined by three equations:

- A Pbp)
0.052 D

( BHP- A P,

P =

PSR

Fvel
Pvd

Q=
BHP
APfa
APb,,
D
p
PSR
Fvel
Pve,

Q
do

1029.6

= static bottomhole pressure, psi

= friction pressure in annulus, psi
= back pressure, psi
= TVD to mid. perfs., ft
= injected fluid system density, ppg
= particle settling ratio
= annular fluid velocity, Wmin
= particle setting velocity, Wmin
= pump rate, BPM
= inside diameter of outer pipe, in.

18-41

= outside diameter of inner pipe, in.

di
A muleshoe cut into the bottom of open-ended coiled tubing will assist in getting through sand bridges.
Straightening out the last 3 ft of the coiled tubing before running in a well will also assist in getting
through tight spots, ledges and restrictions.

Friction Pressure
Pumping fluids through coiled tubing creates a frictional pressure resistance. The friction or pressure
drop (or loss) is affected by flow rate, fluid density, fluid viscosity, tube ID, tube length, and the roughness of the tube wall. Roughness of the tube wall is taken as 0.00015 (for purposes of chart computation), a common value for absolute roughness in clean steel pipe. The Reynolds number, Re, is:

Re =

(2125.7*

Q * r) / ( d * U )

: [Re is dimensionless]

where:
Q

= flow rate in BPM

= density of flowing fluid, Ib/ft3

= viscosity of flowing fluid, cp

= inside diameter of tube

Once the Reynolds number is calculated, a friction factor for steel is obtained from Figure 3. Locate
the Reynolds number, then read vertically up to the right tubing size curve then over to find the friction
factor, f.
Pressure drop in psi per 1000 ft of tubing is then:

AP/1000ft = (380.901* r *

f.

8)/ (8)

In calculation of the pressure drop by formula or by the graphs that follow this discussion, the entire
length of the tubing on the coil must be used (regardless of the depth of the well). If the DP is
572 psi/l ,000 ft for a 1.25 in. OD (1 in. ID) coiled tubing with 16,000 ft of coiled tubing on the coil, then
the pressure drop is 16 x 572 = 9,152 psi. It does not matter that the well may only be 4000 ft deep.
Downhole tools run on coiled tubing are usually only slightly modified conventional wireline and tubing
conveyed tools. The opportunity for coiled tubing in many of these areas is to bridge the gap between
the utility and ease of operation of slick line and the rugged but expensive tubing-conveyed techniques. In Figure 18.40, some of the more common tools are mentioned. The type of downhole equipment will depend upon the individual job. Each bottomhole assembly (BHA) should be tailored for a
specific well condition.
Examples of the burst, collapse, and tensile strengths of the tubing are shown in Figure 18.41 .17*19
Coiled tubing is made by forming steel strap into tube and welding the seam. The individual straps are
joined at the end of each spool of strap. Total operational coil tubing spool lengths of over 20,000 ft
(6100 m) are common and the record depth for working coiled tubing is over 20,000 ft (6100 m). The
work life of the tubing is affected by the number of trips and the environment of operation. The wear is
usually fatigue and occurs at the surface as the tubing comes off the spool, curves over the goose
neck and is gripped by the injector. Fatigue is increased when the tubing is worked while pressured.
Stretch of the tubing under load can be estimated by the following formula.

E
L

= elongation of tubing below injector head, ft = 0.0567 L2

= tubing length below injector head, 1000 ft

18-42

Tool
Fishing Neck
Hydraulic Disconnect
Retrieval Tool
Tubing End Locator
Circulating Valve
Fluid Control Valve/Back Press Valve
Swivel
Straddle Packer
Tubing Connectors
HydrauI ic Jars
Nozzle Heamater Blaster
Force Generator
Logging Tools
Mud Motor
Tubing Cutter - Mechanical

Use
Standard at top of BHA
Releases C.T. when BHA stuck
Pulling serviceable equipment
Depth Control
Allows circulation above BHA
Keeps CT full of fluid, isolates
Releases torque
Isolates interval for treating
CT to jointed tubing
Creates jarring impact
Cleans and cuts deposits
Provide push/pull force
Various
Sand plugs, milling, fishing, drilling
Run with motor

'Figure 18.39: Common Coiled Tubing Tools

Mills
Run with motor
Inflatable Packers
Various
Bridge Plugs
Various
Centralizers
Hydraulic or fixed
Fishing Tools
Various
Knuckle Joint
Fishing or retrieving aid
Cameras
Various
Nipples/Profiles
Various
Increases CT reach in horizontals
-Pump Down Tools
PLT Tools
Well diagnosis
Orienting Tool
Rotates BHA 30"by 45O by cycling pump
Adjustable Bent Sub
Bends to preset angle when pressure applied
Re-engageable Fishing Tools
Engage/Disengage by setdown/ pickup or hydraulic
Shifting Mandrel

Opening/closing sliding sleeves

Figure 18.40: Common Coiled Tubing Tools

(Ackert, 19t

Thus, 10,000 ft of tubing below the injection head would have a stretch of about:

0.0567 (10)

6 ft (1.82 m)

The stretch may be much higher when under load or much less due to buckling when the tubing is in
compression.
Coiled tubing is widely used in deviated wells. It can easily be used in the wells over 55" deviation
where wireline cannot be run with some tools. The utility of the coiled tubing in deviated wells is limited by the angle of the well, frictional drag as it is pushed into the well, the weight it is pushing (including its own) and the positive and negative effects of buoyancy provided by fluids in the tubing and in
the annulus. The failure of tubing at the high frictional loads is usually by buckling.

18-43

Dlmensions

Pressure Capaclty

Figure 18.41

(Ackert, 1989)

Tubing is also available with wireline running through the inside. The wireline equipped coils are used
for combination work such as logging and spotting fluid or for running logging tools in high angle
holes.
One of the best uses of coiled tubing is in spotting workover fluids.lg In a typical fluid spotting operation, the coiled tubing is stung through the tubing and packer to a point in the casing below the
tailpipe. The coiled tubingltubing annulus is left open while the fluid is circulated into place through the
coil tubing. If the treatment involves acid, the tubing is slowly picked up as the acid is pumped, leaving
just the end of the tubing in the acid. The coiled tubing may then be removed or left in the well to provide nitrogen unloading capacity on the backflow. Although the technique places the treating fluid in
the right location, whether the fluid remains in place depends on its density relative to the fluid in the
wellbore. Unless trapped by a packer and plug or a selective injection tool, fluids with density differences of as little as 0.05 g/cc will separate.20

Well Testing with Coiled Tubing

Well testing, which can be difficult when wells do not flow and a test is needed before a lift system is
installed, is greatly simplified by the use of coiled tubing. Use of coil tubing and compressed nitrogen
gas permits collection of two critical pieces of diagnostic information; estimation of the formations productivity index, PI, and verification of the actual response of the well to various lifting conditions.21
The gas lift tests use a standard coiled tubing system with a check valve in the bottom and nitrogen
gas. The coiled tubing is run through the tubing to a point above the perforations. In most cases, the
coiled tubing shoe (end of the coiled tubing) remains within the tubing. The effective working area for
flow is the annulus between the outside of the coiled tubing and the inside of the tubing wall. The well
is unloaded of wellbore fluid by the action of the rising, expanding nitrogen gas. The volume of fluid
produced from the well is dependent on the rate of formation feed-in, the capacity of the coiled tubinghubing annulus and the amount of lift provided by the nitrogen gas. If the formation feed-in and
pressure are sufficient, the nitrogen gas injection can be reduced until the liquids produced at the surface just equal the feed-in from the formation. This steady state method offers the best method of testing, but because the lower limit of injection rate on most nitrogen supply units is about 150 scfm, the
continuous lift is impractical for most welis.*l

References
1. Conversation with Joe Yoder, Otis Engineering, May 9, 1989.

18-44

2. Bielstein, W. J.: Wireline Methods and Equipment, Seventh World Petroleum Congress, Paper
PD-ll(l), 1967.
3. Rust, D., Feather, G. L.: Mechanical Understanding Essential for Cased-Hole Wireline Operations, Oil & Gas J., (Apr. 4, 1977), pp. 86-91.
4. Vaughn, G. A., Chaung, H.: Wireline Materials for Sour Service, Materials Performance (Jan.
1982), pp. 44-50.

5. Patton, L. D., Abbott, W. A.: Wireline Completions The Systems Approach, Pet. Eng. Int.
(Aug. 1981), p. 83, 86, 89, 92, 94, 98.

6. Adams, N.: Coiled-tubing rigs speed workover operations, Oil and Gas J. (Sept. 14, 1987),
p. 87-92.
7. Frank, W. J.: Improved Concentric Workover Techniques, J.P.T. (April 1969), pp. 401-408.

8. Cobb, D. O., Bragg, J. A., Haines, J. R., Putnam, J. S.: Coiled Tubing Nonrig Workovers at
Prudhoe Bay, SPE 17592, International Mtg., Tiangjin, China, Nov. 1-4, 1988.
9. AI Khatib, M. A., Sadik, A. S.: Design and Techniques of Testing and Evaluation of Deep Khuff
Wells, SPE 13682, Mid-East Tech. Conf., Bahrain, March 11-14, 1985.
10.

, Produce Through Coiled Tubing to Keep Marginal Wells Unloaded, World Oil,
(Dec. 1986), 38, 39.

, Straddle Packers for Coil Tubing Operations, Nawsco Technical Publication,

11.

Ret58.1.
12. Taylor, D. B.: Gas Well Stimulation Using Coiled Tubing and Acid with a Mutual Solvent, SPE
4115, Annual Tech. Conf., San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11, 1972.
13. Mac Ewen, H.:Coiled-Tubing-Conveyed Logging Systems, SPE 18350, Euro. Pet. Conf., London, Oct. 16-19, 1988.
14. Howell, E. P., Smith, L. J., Blount, C. G.: Coiled-Tubing Logging System, SPE 15489, presented at the 61st Annual Tech. Mtg., Oct. 5-8, 1986 (New Orleans).
15. Jones, C. M.: Application of Tubing-Conveyed Techniques in Through-Tubing Operations, SPE
16214, Prod. Oper. Symp., Oklahoma City, March 8-10, 1987.

16. Cooper, R. E.: Coiled Tubing in Horizontal Wells, SPE 17581, International Mtg., Tianjin, China,
NOV.1-4, 1988.

, QT-70 Technical Data, Quality Tubing, Inc., Technical Publication.

17.
18.
Pipe.

, SP-70 Coil Tubing Services, Physical and Chemical Test Report, Southwestern

19. Ackert, D.: The Coiled Tubing Revolution, Oilfield Review, (October 1989), p. 4.
20. Fredrickson, S. E., Broaddus, G. C.: Selective Placement of Fluids in a Fracture By Controlling
Density and Viscosity, SPE 5629, 50th Annual. Mtg., Dallas, Sept. 28-Oct. 1, 1975.

18-45

21. DeGhetto, G.: How To Optimize Well Testing With Coiled Tubing, Petroleum Engineer Int.,
(January 1990), pp. 31-34.
22. Pursell, J. C., Moore, B. K.:How to Sand Wash Large Tubulars with Coiled Tubing, Pet. Eng.
Intl., August, 1992, pp. 42-45.

Additional References on Coiled Tubing

1. Adams, L. S.: Coiled Tubing Velocity String Set at Record 20,500 ft, Oil and Gas Journal, April
13, 1992, pp. 44-46.
2. Adams, L. S. and Marsili, D. L.: Design and Installation of a 20,5004 Coiled Tubing Velocity
String in the Gomez Field, Pecos County Texas, SPE 24792.
3. Adams, N.: Coiled Tubing Rigs Speed Workover Operations, Oil and Gas Journal, September
14, 1981, pp. 87-92.

4. Anderson, G. and Hutchison, S.: How to Efficiently Wash Sand from Deviated Wellbores, World
Oil (December 1978), pp. 75-84.
5. Avakov, V. A. and Council, M. M.: Universal Gripper Blocks for Reeled Tubing Injectors, ASME
92-Pet-7, January 26-30, 1992, Houston.

6. Avakov, V. A. and Foster, J. C.: Coiled Tubing Life-Strain-Reliability Function, 2nd International
Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 2931,1994.
7. Avakov, V. A., Foster, J. C., and Smith, E. J.: Coiled Tubing Life Prediction, OTC 7325.
8. Bedford, S. A.: Coiled Tubing Operations in the Northern North Sea, Magnus Field, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston,
March 29-31, 1994.
9. Blount, C. G.: The Challenge for the Coiled Tubing Industry, Journal of Pet. Eng., May 1994,
pp. 427-430.
10. Blount, C. G.: Coiled Tubing, Operations and Services, Part 15 - Special Tools, World Oil, May
1993, pp. 53-56.
11. Blount, C. G.,Herring, G. D., Patterson, W. W., and Walker, M. L.: Acid Inhibition for Coiled Tubing: Laboratory Screening and Field Verification, SPE 25498.
12. Blount, C. G., Ward, S.L., Weiss, T. D., and Hightower, C. M.: Recompletions Using Large
Diameter Coiled Tubing: Prudhoe Bay Case History and Discussion, SPE 22821, Dallas,
October 6-9, 1991.
13. Brookey, T., Bird, J., and Garrett, C.: Use of Drilling Fluid Additives to Improve Drilling and
Remedial Operations with Coiled Tubing, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31 , 1994.

14. Brown, A.D.F., Merrett, S. J., and Putnam, J. S.: Coiled-Tubing Milling/Underreaming of Barium
Sulfate Scale and Scale Control in the Forties Field, SPE 23106, 1991 SPE Offshore Europe
Conf., Aberdeen, September 3-6.

18-46

15. Brown, P. T. and Wimberly, R. D.: Coiled Tubing, Operations and Services, Part 10, World Oil,
October 1992, pp. 75-79.
16. Campbell, J. A. and Bayes, K. P.: Installation of 2-7/8 in. Tubing Tailpipes in Live Gas Wells,
Journal of Pet. Tech., May 1994, pp. 442-447.
17.

: New Life for an Old Slope, Journal of Pet. Eng., May 1994, pp. 388-390.

18. Chambers, M. J.: Laying Sand Plugs with Coiled Tubing, 2nd International Conference on
Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31 , 1994.
19. Chitwood, G. B., Lewis, P. C., Fowler, S.H., and Zernick, W. M.: High-strength Coiled Tubing
Expands Service Capabilities, OTC 7032.
20. Coats, E. A. and Johnson, K. J.: Reeled-Tubing Technology Accelerates Coalbed Methane Production in the Black Warrior Basin, SPE 21697.
21. Coats, E. A. and Marinello, S.A.: Coiled Tubing Flowline Cuts Wetlands Disturbance, World
Oil, December 1993, pp. 75-78.
22. Cobb, D. O., Bragg, J. A., Haines, J. R., and Putnam, J. S.: Coiled Tubing Now-Rig Workovers
at Prudhoe Bay, SPE 17592.
23. Coker, G. P.: Evaluation of Coiled Tubing for Production Service, Cron. 92076ART0044, March
16, 1992.
24. Cooper, R. E.: Coiled Tubing in Horizontal Wells, SPE 17581.
25. Copoulos, A. E., Costal, D., and Nice, S.B.: Planning a Coiled Tubing Conveyed Production
Logging Job in a Horizontal Well, 1993 SPE Western Regional, Anchorage, May 26-28.
26. Coronodo, M. P., Mody, R. K., and Craig, G. C.: Thru-Tubing Inflatable Workover Systems,
SPE 22825, Dallas, October 6-9, 1991.
27. Courville, P. and Avakov, V.: Coiled Tubing String Management, 2nd International Conference
on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31, 1994.
28.

: Panel Discussion: Artificial Lift, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing

Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31, 1994.

29. Crouse, P. C.: Advancements in Coiled Tubing Technology, 5th International Horizontal Well
Technology Conference, Amsterdam, July 13-16, 1993.
30. Dees, J. and Handren, P.: A New Method of Overbalanced Perforating and Surging of Resin for
Sand Control, Journal of Pet. Eng., May 1994, pp. 431-435.
31. Dorman, T. G., Matte, T., and Stout, G. W.: Single Trip Gravel Packing System Used Effectively
on a Highly Deviated Well, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31, 1994.
32. Doremus, D.: Coiled Tubing Drilling: Update 94, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31, 1994.

18-47

33. Edens, F. J.: Coiled Tubing Development Schedule, Mid-Continent Business Unit, December
10,1991.
34. Fowler, H.: Horizontal Well Servicing by Coiled Tubing Enhanced for High Angle/Horizontal
Wells, World Oils 5 th Horizontal Well Technology Conference, Amsterdam, July 13-16, 1993.
35. Fowler, S.H. and Pleasants, C. W.: Operation and Utilization of Hydraulic-Actuated Service
Tools for Reeled Tubing, SPE 20678.
36. Fram, J. H. and Eberhard, M. J.: Use of Coiled Tubing for Abandoning Shallow Thermal Wells,
South Belridge Field, Kern Co., California, 1993 Western Regional, Anchorage, May 26-28.
37. Gantt, L. L. and Smith, B. E.: Advances in the Coiled Tubing Squeeze Cement Process at Prudhoe Bay, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services,
Practices, Houston, March 29-31 1994.
38.

: Panel Discussion: Cementing with Coiled Tubing, 2nd International Conference on

Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31 , 1994.

39. Going, W. S.: Inhibitor Treatment by Coil Tubing Unit Can Now Be Perforated While Maintaining
Production, SPE 18891.
40. Gollob, K. W.: Experience with Slimhole Gravel Packs, SPE 24985.
41. Gronseth, J. M.: Coiled Tubing, Operations and Services, Part 14, World Oil, April 1993,
pp. 43-50.
42. Harness, P. E., Hansen, M. D., Terzan, G. A., Fowler, S.H., and Golino, F. J.: An Overview of
Reeled-Tubing-Conveyed Production Logging Capabilities in California, SPE 20028.
43. He, Xiaojun and Kyllingstad, A.: Helical Buckling and Lock-Up Conditions for Coiled Tubing in
Curved Wells, SPE 25370, 1993 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conf., Singapore, February 810.
44. Herben, W. C. and Maurer, W. C.: Coring to 50,000 ft with Coiled Tubing, ASME 91-PET-6, New
Orleans, January 20-24, 1991.
45. Hightower, C. M.: Coiled Tubing, Operations and Services, Part 11, World Oil, November 1992.
46. Hornbrook, P. R. and Mason, C. M.: Improved Coiled-Tubing Squeeze Cementing Techniques at
Prudhoe Bay, SPE 19543.
47. Hoyer, C.W.J., Chassogne, A., Vidick, B, and Hartley, I. P.: A Platform Abandonment Program in
the North Sea Using Coiled Tubing, SPE 23110.
48. Howell, E.

P.,Smith, L. J., and Blount, C. G.:.Coiled-Tubing Logging System, SPE 15489.

49. Kane, R. D. and Cayard, M. S.: Factors Affecting Coiled Tubing Serviceability, Pet. Eng. Int.,
January 1993, pp. 42-47.
50. Kilgore, M. D.: New Muscle for Coiled Tubing, OTC 7034.

51. King, G. E.: Effective Perforating Design, F93-P-59, February 22, 1994.

18-48

52. King, G. E.: Comments on Coiled Tubing Problems, Cron. 92076ART0044, March 16, 1992.
53. Krause, R. E. and Reem, D. C.: New Coiled-Tubing Unit Cementing Techniques at Prudhoe
Developed to Withstand Higher Differential Pressure, SPEPF (November 1993), p. 260.
54. Landcaster, G. Lohuis, G., and Redmond, S.: The Expanded Use of Coil Tubing in both Completion and Workover Operations, CIM 88-39-49.
55. Latos, G.: Performance and Economy in Downhole Jetting to Remove Deposits, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston,
March 29-31, 1994.

56. Latos, J. and Chenery, D.: Logging with a Coiled Tubing System, J. Can. Pet. Tech. (March April 1988), pp. 81-84.
57. Leggett, R. B., Griffith, C. A., and Wesson, H. R., Jr.: Snubbing Unit Applications in Potentially
High-Rate Gas Wells: A Case Study of the Anschutz Ranch East Unit, Summit Co., Utah,
S{E 22924, Dallas, October 6-9, 1991.
58. Leising, L. J. and Newman, K. R.: Coiled-Tubing Drilling, SPE Drilling and Completions,
December 1993, pp. 227-232.
59. Leising, L. J. and Rike, A.: Coiled Tubing Case History, IADC/S PE 27433, Dallas,
February 15-18, 1994.
60. Lemp, S.P., Wiebe, C., and Thomeer: Downhole Sensors for oled Tubing Stimulations, 2nd
International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31 , 1994.
61. Lidisky, D. J., Purcell, J. C., Russell, W. K., Dwiggins, J. L., and Coburn, G. S.: Coiled-TubingDeployed Electric Submersible Pumping System, SPE 26863, OTC, May 3-6.
62. Loveking, J. W.: Control of Calcium Carbonate Scale Using Concentric Tubing at Cos0 Geothermal Field, Trans., Ann. Geothermal Res. Counc. Intl. Geothermal Energy Sym., Kailua-Kona,
Hawaii (1990), 14, Part2, p. 1611.
63. MacEwen, H.: Coiled-Tubing-Conveyed Logging Systems, SPE 18350.
64. McMechan, R. and Crombie, D.: Drilling, Completing and Fracturing a Gas Well with Coiled
Tubing, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services,
Practices, Houston, March 29-31 , 1994.
65.

: Panel Discussion: Drilling with Coiled Tubing, 2nd International Conference on Coiled
Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31, 1994.

66. Melvan, J.: Coiled Tubing Fill Cleanouts, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31, 1994.
67. Mensa-Wilmot, G. and Coolidge, R. B.: Coiled Tubing Drilling with Specialized PDC Bits, 2nd
International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31, 1994.
68. Mirza, T., Budiman, M., Cannan, W. L., and Bordelon, T. P.: Coiled Tubing Workovers in Deep,
Hot Wells, SPE 20427, 1990 Ann. Tech. Conf., New Orleans, September 23-26.

18-49

69. Misselbrook, J., Wilde, G., and Falk, K.: The Development and Use of a Coiled Tubing Simulation for Horizontal Applications, SPE 22822, Dallas, October 6-9, 1991.
70. Moore, B.: The Mechanics of Coupling Completion Equipment to Coiled Tubing, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston,
March 29-31, 1994.
71. Moore, B. K., Lafin, W. J., and Walker, E. J.: Rigless Completions: A Spoolable Coiled-Tubing
Gas-Lift System, SPE 26862, 1993 OTC, May 3-6.
72. Mullin, M. A., McCarty, S.H., and Plante, M.E.: Fishing with 1.5 and 1.75411. Coiled Tubing at
Western Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, SPE 20679.
73. Newman, K. R.: Coiled Tubing Pressure and Tension Limits, SPE 23131.
74. Newman, K. R. and Allcorn, M. G.: Coiled Tubing in High-pressure Wells, SPE 24793.
75. Newman, K., Drake, P., and Palmer, R.: Newman Developments in Coiled Tubing Equipment,
2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices,
Houston, March 29-31, 1994.
76. Newman, K. R. and Newburn, D. A.: Coiled Tubing Life Modeling, SPE 22820, Dallas,
October 6-9, 1991.
77. Norton, V., Eden, F., Coker, G., and King, G.: Large Diameter Coiled Tubing Completions
Decrease Risk of Formation Damage, Oil and Gas Journal, July 20, 1992.
78. Ostavang, K., Kopperstad, O., and Tailby, R. J.: Planning, Implementation and Analysis of
Coiled Tubing Operations in an Ultra-Long-Reach Well, 2nd International Conference on Coiled
Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31, 1994.
79. Papadimitriou, S.and Stanley, R. K.: The Inspection of Used Coiled Tubing, 2nd International
Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 2931.
80. Peavy, M. A. and Fahel, R, A.: Artificial Lift with Coiled Tubing for Flow Testing the Monterey
Formation, Offshore California, SPEPE (May 1991), p. 141.
81. Pleasants, C. W., Head, D. W., and de Ruiter, J.: Design Testing and Field Use of a New Selective Reeled Tubing Well Stimulation System, SPE 22826, Dallas, October 6-9, 1991.
82. Plummer, M. A., Peavy, M. A., and Cooke, J. C.: Through Tubing Gravel Packs: Gulf of Mexico
Case Histories, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31, 1994.
83. Purcell, J. C. and Moore, B. K.: How to Sand Wash Large Tubulars with Coiled Tubing, Pet.
Eng. Int., August 1992, pp. 42-45.
84. Rademaker, R. A., Olszewski, K. K., Goiffon, J. J., and Maddox, S.D.: Coiled-Tubing-Deployed
Downhole Video System, SPE 24794.
85. Ramos, A. B., Fahel, R. A., Chaffin, M., and Pulis, K. H.: Horizontal Slim-Hole Drilling with
Coiled Tubing: An Operators Experience, JPT, October 1992, p. 1119.

18-50

86. Rich, D. A. and Blue, T. H.: Coiled Tubing, Operations and Services, Part 13, World Oil, March
1993, pp. 67-76.
87. Sas-Jaworsky, A.: Coiled Tubing, Operations and Services, Part 12 - Stimulation, World Oil,
January 1993, pp. 39-43.
88. Sas-Jaworsky, A.: Coiled Tubing, Operations and Services, Part 5, World Oil, April 1992,
pp. 59-66.
89. Sas-Jaworsky, A.: Coiled Tubing, Operations and Service, Part 3, World Oil, January 1992,
pp. 95-102.
90. Sas-Jaworsky, A.: Coiled Tubing, Operations and Services, Part 2 - Workover Safety, World
Oil, December 1991, pp. 71-78.
91. Sas-Jaworsky, S. and Williams, J. G.: Potential applications and Enabling Capabilities of Composite Coiled Tubing, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations,
Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31, 1994.
92. Schutz, R. W. and Thomas, D. E.: Corrosion of Titanium and Titanium Alloys, ASM Metals
Handbook, 9th edition, vol. 13 - Corrosion, pp. 669-706, ASM Int. 1987.
93. Slaton, Mike: Coiled Tubing for Pipelines, Pipeline Digest, November 1992, pp. 9-11.
94. Stephens, R. K. and Welch, J. L.: Coiled Tubing Remedial Straddle Completions, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston,
March 29-31 , 1994.
95. Tailby, R. J.: Pumpdown Assistance Extends Coiled Tubing Reach, World Oil, July 1992,
pp. 55-61.
96. Tailby, R. J., Yonker, J. H., and Pearce, J. L.: A New Technique for Servicing Horizontal Wells,
SPE 22823, Dallas, October 6-9, 1991.
97. Taylor, D. B. and Plummer, 8.A.: Gas Well Stimulation on Using Coiled Tubing and Acid with a
Mutual Solvent, SPE 4115.
98. Teel, M. E.:Coiled Tubing 1994: Enhanced Value Through Innovation, World Oil, January
1994, pp. 35-43.
99. Thompson, J. M., Lewis, P. C., Scott, S., and Fowler, S. H.: Full Body Quenched and Tempered
Coiled Tubing: Theory vs. Field Experience, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing
Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31, 1994.
100. Tipton, S. M. and Brown, P. A.: Monitoring Coiled Tubing Fatigue Life, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31,
1994.
101. vanAdrichem, W. and Adam, B.: Safety Factor is Important in Design of CT Job, The American
Oil and Gas Reporter, March 1993, pp. 74-79.
102. vanAdrichem, W. and Newman, K. R.: Validation of Coiled Tubing Penetration Prediction in Horizontal Wells, SPE 24765.

18-5 1

103. Walker, E. J.: How Loads Affect Coiled Tubing Life, World Oil, January 1992, pp. 47-49.
104. Walker, E. J. and Schmohr, D. R.: The Role of Coiled Tubing in the Western Operating Area of
the Prudhoe Bay Unit, SPE 22959.
105. Welch, J. L. and Stephens, R. K.: Coiled Tubing, Operations and Services, Part 9, World Oil,
September 1992, pp. 81-85.
106. Welch, J. L. and Whitlow, R.: Coiled Tubing, Operations and Services, Part 8, World Oil,
September 1992, pp. 89-95.

107. Wesson, W. R.: Coiled Tubing Pipelines and Flowlines: Update 94, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31,
1994.
108. Conversation with Jim Gouveia and Din0 Martin, Amoco Canada, March 31, 1992.

109. Quality Tubing, Inc., Coiled Tubing Technical Manual, 1991, (713) 456-0751,
110. Advances in Coiled Tubing Drilling and Completions at Prudhoe Bay, 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, Houston, March 29-31,
1994.

18-52

Appendix 18.A
In wells that cannot be lifted continuously, intermittent lift is necessary. In the intermittent operations,
the nitrogen is injected for a short time at regular intervals until the tubing is evacuated and then
stopped to allow fluid to accumulate. The shutin time and the flow time can be calculated from an
equation by Nind.

AV

( P I ) ( WIA) (A 7 ) ]
[(H>
( W l - 1 - 1-exp [ (-0.0239)5.614
WIA

P-P-

where:
AV
AT
P,
Pw
H
W
A

= volume of liquid buildup in CT/tubing annulus during time A T bbl

=time interval during liquid buildup, hour

= reservoir static pressure, psig
= wellhead pressure, psig
= distance between coiled tubing shoe and reservoir, ft
= average liquid gradient, psi/ft
= cross sectional area of coiled tubinghubing annulus, ft2
PI
= productivity index, STB/d/psi
In fluid lift with nitrogen gas, the choke is usually completely open to maximize liquid buildup rate during the waiting time: therefore, pb the wellhead pressure, is usually zero. When Pw = 0, the equation
can be rearranged to:

AVx

( W/A)

pr- [ ( H ) ( W l

- 1- exp [ (-0.0239) ( P I ) ( W / A ) (AT> 1

5.614

A graph of [AT(WA)]/[PA(h)(W)}] vs. [(W/A)AT] results in a multi-plot such as shown in Figure A.21
These curves are parametric (sets the limits of) in PI. The value of a curve of this type for Piestimation
should be apparent: all of the data are available at the well site. Wand AVare measured from recovered fluid, ATand Hare set by the operator and A is fixed for any tubing configuration.
A data point set is generated by each lift and successive lifts define the curve and the approximate PI.
An example of the data plotted on the curve is shown in Figure B.21 Although the P1 generated in this
manner is an approximation, it is useful for a first appraisal. Graphing the points rather than relying
solely on the equation allows abnormal data points to be spotted. These abnormal points are usually
associated with errors in measurements of produced fluids. Graphing the results also allows evaluation of how waiting time and coiled tubing shoe depth affect the liquid recovery, Figures C and D.
The assumptions necessary for this method are:
1. The liquid recovered has the same density as the one in the coiled tubinghubing system (e.g., lit-

tle or no solution gas).

2. Each single lift is able to produce all the volume accumulated in the coiled tubing/tubing annulus.
3. No liquid fallback is experienced (no change in film on annular surfaces).

4. Liquid starts to build up in the annulus only when the previous lift is finished.

18.A-53

Field results as reported by De Ghetto have shown in most cases that the hypotheses are acceptable.
The reliability of the calculated PI is best when:21
1. P1 itself is low (less than 0.5 STB/d/psi).

2. ATis high (greater than 2 hrs).

3. Duration of each lifting phase is short (1-2 hrs).

4. The nitrogen injection rate is high (greater than 500 SCF/m).

Field experience has shown that optimum lift rate is between 500 and 1000 SCF/m. Higher nitrogen
injection rates are not usually justified because the time of injection is not usually shortened by the
higher rates. Maximum drawdown with this technique occurs at the beginning of the liquid buildup (the
end of the previous nitrogen lift). This is also affected by the depth of the coil tubing shoe since this
depth affects the back pressure of the static fluid height over the formation. The shorter the distance
between the coil tubing shoe and the reservoir, the better the reliability of the PI. However, the coil tubing must not be spotted so close as to allow nitrogen to enter the oil reservoir. Typical placement separation of the coil tubing shoe and the top of the perforations is 300 ft.
Common problems with the method are high solution gas oils and oils that form froths, foams and
emulsions with the gas.

18.A-54

Chapter 19: Workover Fishing

Fishing is the recovery of tools or equipment that have been lost in the well. The object to be removed
is the fish. It may be any tool, equipment or other object in a cased or uncased wellbore that stops or
retards operational progress. In drilling operations, common fish are twisted off pipe, lost drill collars,
downhole tools or bit cones. In production operations, the fish may be parted pipe or rod strings,
pumps and tools. Fishing success is dominated by experience. That is, the success of fishing operations is heavily dependent upon the experience of the operator plus a measure of both preparation
and patience. For an in-depth look at fishing, the reader is referred to Fishing and Casing Repair by
J. A. Short, or to icOilwell Fishing Operations: Tools and Techniques by Gore Kemp.
Workover fishing requires special tools run on slickline, wireline or tubing (depending on fish weight),
that surround or snag the fish. There are a variety of fishing tools to fit the large variety of common
and uncommon fish. These tools fall into basic categories. Catch tools are tools designed to grab a
particular type of surface. Catch tools for tubular fish are overshots with box-end-down tool joints
(threaded connections) that mate with the up-looking pin of the tubing or casing. The overshot is the
most common catch tool. It is dropped or rotated over the backed off section of the lost tubular string
(the fish). The overshot is conical inside and has ridges that grip the fish and hold it for the trip back to
the surface. Figure 19.1 contains various views of overshots with special inserts and mills for preparation of a surface. Most overshots latch onto threaded surfaces, cut new threads with hardened dies
built into the fishing tools or grip the outside surface with thread-like projections. Because most tubing
fish do no stand straight up in the center of the hole, additional devices for guiding a fish, which may
be leaning on the wall, into the fishing tool are standard equipment. These tools, principally wall hooks
and guides (also called mule shoes) are shown in Figure 19.2. Overshots are the primary fishing tool
and are preferred for almost all fishing operations. They are often the first tool tried because they do
not usually damage or enlarge the top of the fish.

TOP SUB

BOWL

BASKET
GRAPPLE
MILL
CONTROL
PACKER

Die Collar

GUIDE

(Gotco)

Figure 19.1 : Types of overshots.

Spears are the second group of catch devices, but are designed to fit inside the fish much like screwing a bolt into an uplooking nut. Spears are usually threaded cones and designed to screw into uplooking collars. Details of latch type spears and threaded taps and spears are shown in Figure 19.3.
Operators use spears as a last resort because unsuccessful efforts with the spear often splits the fish.
The splitting action wedges the fish out and makes further recovery operations more difficult.

19-1

(Gotco)

Figure 19.2: Fish engaging devices

(Gotco)

Figure 19.3: Above: threaded tap

Right: releasing spear

Tools for nontubular fish include magnets, Figure 19.4, junk baskets and bailers, Figure 19.5, wireline
grabs, Figure 19.6, and other specialty tools. Magnets are useful for any steel object within the mag-

19-2

nets strength range that has a relatively flat up-looking surface for magnet contact. Drill bit teeth,
cones, bearings, slips, tongs and other debris are candidates. Fish with irregular surfaces should be
retrieved with other devices. Junk baskets are useful for retrieving bit teeth, mill cuttings, and small
metal pieces that can be lifted by circulation at the bit. Any time wireline is lost (or is even a possibility)
wireline fingers or grabs should be run. Wireline poses a problem because it passes along the side of
the fishing tool and can stick the fishing string by becoming engaged in tool openings. It is especially
hazardous for wireline fishing tools since multiple strands may become entangled and the strength of
the multiple strands exceeds the active single strand strength in the fishing operation. The wireline fingers are nearly the same as the id of the tubing and force the wire into a funnel where it can be
trapped by a wedge tool when the tool is picked up. Fishing wire can require many trips in some
cases. Wireline grabs have barbs that can hook onto a snarl or loop in the lost wire. Of the two basic
types of wireline grabs, the overshot with barbs on the inside of the arms is preferred to the spear. The
spear can spread the mass of wire, sticking the entire fishing assembly.

(from Gotco)
(from Magnetic Oil Tools, Inc.)

Figure 19.4: Two views of tubing run magnets.

The one part of a fishing assembly that is used every time are the jars. Without them, wireline is
almost useless to free any stuck object. Jars are like a slide hammer and are featured in Chapter 18.
They increase the pulling efficiency of the wireline or tubular goods. The jar contains a mechanism for
internally releasing, allowing the wireline to accelerate and then suddenly reengaging, delivering a
jolt.* Jarring increases the pull on the fish, with only a momentary increase in the shock load on the
wireline. Sufficient force is applied to the pipe or wireline at the surface to bring the tension at the jar
to the triggering value (overpull). The overpull must be below the maximum tensile strength of the fishing string. After the jar is triggered, the released ends (the hammer and anvil) are free to move toward
each other. The wireline or pipe above the jar are accelerated under no load and, upon re-engagement of the jar, the energy is transmitted to the fish. Jarring is a complex operation that uses the
movement of the wireline or tubing to store energy that is suddenly directed to the fish. It creates an
impact with much larger inertial force than is possible with a straight pull.
Some operations tools that are routinely fished are designed with a special fishing neck that allows a
fishing tool to clip on for removal.
An idea of what the top of the fish looks like is probably the best tool available. To obtain this information, soft lead impression blocks are often run and set down on the fish to give an idea of its shape
and p ~ s i t i o nThe
. ~ impression blocks are a useful tool but should be run on wireline and must only be
set down once to avoid double impressions. Other alternatives include the downlooking television
camera if the well is dry or if clear water can be circulated into the well. The easiest information on the
fish can come from an accurate pipe tally and i.d. and 0.d. measurement of everything that goes into

19-3

(Hendershot)

Figure 19.5: Junk basket (above) run

on pipe and sand pump
bailer (right] run on wireline.

(Cavins)

Pin thread
Pishins neck

yousing

lrong

SsZS

(Camco)
Figure 19.6: A wireline grab tool.

19-4

the well. The best fishing luck is a knowledge of exactly what is in the well at any time. Measurements and sketches of downhole equipment are a precious commodity when tools or equipment are
lost. One problem in a fishing operation is that accidentally dropped tools, chain, slips, or other equipment may not be reported.
The length of time that is spent on fishing will vary from company to company, but there is a limit at
which most companies will suspend fishing operations and sidetrack or abandon the weL4 The correct
strategy in a fishing operation is to minimize the losses. There are several decision analyses available
for fishing and most are based on the current depth of the well, the cost of the rig to give the maximum
number of fishing days before abandonment. In areas with high rig costs, sidetracking is usually more
profitable than several days fishing if the well is still at a shallow depth.
The following rule of thumb equation from Brouse provides one companys indication of the maximum number of days that a fishing operation should continue before sidetrack operations begin.5

Nd
V,

= maximum allowable number of days fishing

= total replacement value of the fishing the hole, dollars

,
C

= cost of redrilling the interval or sidetracking, dollars

Cd = rig, operations, and fishing cost, dollars per day.
There are no set rules that can be used in every fishing job. Guidelines and descriptions of tools are
available from a number of sourcesmG

When running fishing tools in a well, the string should be run at a moderate speed to avoid compression of the fluid below the tool and ramming from contacting the fish higher than expected in the hole.
Care must also be exercised when pulling out of a hole so that swabbing action is not created. When
washing or milling in a well, the amount of cuttings that are coming out of the well should be estimated
to determine if a bridge could form above the tools from incomplete cleaning of the well.
Fish destruction tools are mills and explosives that are designed to remove the fish from the hole by
grinding or blowing it into small enough pieces so that it can sink into the rat hole. Mills are hard surface cutters designed to grind metal into small pieces that can be circulated from the well. Other uses
include milling out collapsed casing (taper and watermelon mills), cutting windows in casing for sidetrack operations or preparing the surface of a fish to be threaded. Examples are shown in Figure 19.7.

There are many different ideas about milling. Walker offers the following comments:6
1. Metal will only cut at a certain rate, thus there is no benefit in adding excessive weight to a

string. Addition of large amounts of weight will cause premature wear on the mill, buckling of the
pipe, or cause a rapid breakup of the mill surface.
2. Knowing the type of metal to be milled determines the weight. If the fish is of soft metal, and
more weight will be added, a faster cutting rate is expected. If hard metal is encountered, less

weight should be run.

3. Proper mill speed will vary with the type of equipment being milled but should be in the range of
100-150 rpm for tightly-held material. Mills that are turned too slow will torque up and turn loose
with a jerking motion which may cause mill fatigue and break up. When the junk turns beneath
the mill, the milling rate is very slow and mill damage is common.

19-5

g fluid must get the ~

~out of~ hate,
~ If there
~ is ins
g
s
wilt run ~ ~ n ~ i on~the
~ cuttings
o ~ sit has
~ ycreated and will nat reach the main object.

steel, very high yield p

the way and avoid regrind
nk.

the hole.

ften a yield of I00 lbfl0

~ u ~This~applies
~ ~to s .

eded to get the

dows as well as

k off from the stuck pipe just

be used to wash over the fish.
le, do not back off in an area
ft to get back anto the fish. If a fish
best to back off at feast two joints
off at a point where it would not
oke loose and felt to the bottom of

locatfon of Stuck Fofn?

~ ~ d ~ ~ atools
t i nare
g used to det~rmi~e
the free point tocation above the stuck part of a string so that

the free hanging pipe can be backed off or shot off with explosives to decrease the total weight of the
fish,

When pipe becomes stuck, successful recovery efforts are d e p e ~ don

~ ~know~ng
t
the location of the
a ~ depth
e
to the
sticking point. Using charts that give pipe stretch vs, applied bad can a ~ p r o x i ~the
be a certain ~ ~ oof ~stretch
n ti e pipe per unit length of
stuck point, Under a given load, there
the pipe. By ~ i a cthe
j ~pipe
~ in tension at a measured load, the stretch of the pipe from the stuck point
to the surfacecan be measured. if this length is divided by the unit stretch at the applied load, the
~
~ of free
n pipe
~ (depth
t to~ the stuck point] can be found.

where:
L
K

= free length of pipe (ft)

= constant based on area of pipe, from the table below

Constants Used to Calculate Stuck Depth

Tubing Size

K value

2 in.

2.5 in.
Drill Pipe Size:
2.8/ in. (10.4 Ib/ft)
3.5 in. (13.3 Ib/ft)
4.5 in. (16.6 Ib/ft)
Casing:

4,500,000

8,800,000
10.800.000

5.5 (1 / Ib/ft)

7.0 (23 Ib/ft)

8.625 (32 Ib/ft)

= elongation due to pull (in.)

E
P
= applied pull (Ib)
This procedure works best in straight holes. In deviated wells, the friction from pipe drag influences
the reading.
Several logging devices are also available for locating the point of sticking or giving information about
the fill surrounding a pipe, although all are limited in the information that they can convey. Most can
only accurately locate the uppermost stuck point, but cannot give information about the pipe below.
Freepoint logs consist of a bar of metal with axial and transverse strain gauges to measure longitudinal and shear stress. Gauges at the top and bottom of the tool allow a differential to be generated. As
long as the tool is completely in the free pipe or completely in the stuck pipe, the difference between
gauge reading is zero; but when the top of the stuck point is between the gauges, the difference is
noticeable. The tool is mounted in a wireline conveyed logging tool. At selected depths, the tool is
coupled to the casing with an electromagnet or extendable slips at the top and bottom of the logging
tool. After the coupling, a strain is placed on the pipe at the surface by straight pull or rotational
torque, and the reading from the strain gauges is noted. The pipe stretch method is usually run first to
get a rough approximation where the pipe is stuck.
A small explosive charge can be added at the bottom of the tool to assist in backoff operations. After
the stuck point is identified, the first tool joint (coupling) above the stuck point is identified with a collar
locator, the charge is positioned in the joint, and tension and torque are applied at the surface. When
the charge is detonated, the coupling is momentarily expanded and heavily jarred, and the pipe
breaks out (hopefully) at this point. A synopsis of how to apply torque is shown in Figure 19.8 (from
Schlumberger). The problems are obvious: (1) the string may unscrew at some other point, or (2) it
may not unscrew at all. Success with the tool is experience dominated; the application of the "right"
torque and tension loads and the even makeup of the rest of the string are critical. This log is most
often used to define the interval of pipe that can be removed easily before washover operations.

19-7

Other types of tools are based upon sonic measurements much in the same manner as the cement
bond log. These tools identify fill around the casing.
If the pipe cannot be unscrewed, it is usually parted by an explosive or chemical cutter. The chemical
cutters use a special halogenated acid, sprayed at high pressure from a tool that severs the pipe in
seconds. The explosive cutter is a modified shaped charge that cuts the pipe with a pressure pulse.
Both systems are functional but neither is perfect.

References Fishing
1. Porter, E. W.: Fishing is More Art than Science, Oil & Gas J. (September 21, 1970), pp. 95-96.
2. Skeem, M. R., Friedman, M. B., Walker,
(November 1979), pp. 1381-1386.

B. H.: Drillstring Dynamics During Jar Operation,

3. McDaniel, G. L.: A Theoretical and Experimental Study of Jarring, Unsolicited Manuscript,

SPE 10459.
4. Harrison, C. G.: Fishing Decisions Under Uncertainty, J. Pet. Tech. (February 1982), pp. 299300.
5. Brouse, M.: How to Handle Stuck Pipe and Fishing Operations, World Oil (January 1983),
pp. 123-126.

6. Walker, G.: Fishing, SPE 13360, Eastern Regional Mtg., Charleston, October 31-November 2,
1984.
7. Hutchinson, S.0.: Impression Tool Defines Downhole Equipment Problems, World Oil (November 1974), pp. 74-80.

, Completion Practices 83: Well Designs for 8 U.S. Areas, World Oil (May 1983), pp. 59-

8.
70.

9. Stuck Pipe: Causes and Prevention, Oilfield Review, October 1991, pp. 13-26.
10. Stuck Pipe: Jars, Jarring, and Jar Placement, Oilfield Review, October 1991, pp. 52-61.
11. Stuck Pipe: Backoff Basics, Oilfield Review, October 1991, pp. 48-51.
12. Stuck Pipe: Techniques for Breaking Free, Oilfield Review, October 1991, pp. 27-35
13. Schofield, R., Whelehan, 0. P., Baruya, A.: A New Fishing Equation, SPE 22380, International
Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, March 24-27, 1992.
14. Pipe Recovery Guide, Atlas Wireline Services, 1987.
15. Short, J. A.: Fishing and Casing Repair, PennWell Books, 1981.

References Milling
1. Harvey, H, Lynde, G.:New Milling Tool Achieves High Penetration Rate, OGJ, Sept. 15, 1986,
pp. 92-93.

19-8

2.

,:Mill Munches its Way Through Metal, Drilling Contractor, Aug/Sept. 1986, p. 26, 28.

3. Moore, S. D.:Occidental Improves North Sea Milling Operation, Pet. Eng. Intl., Jan 1987, p. 32,
34, 37.

4. Motley, T., Hollamby, R.:Novel Milling Fluid Saves Time, Cuts Cost, World Oil, pp. 32-36.

19-9

Appendix 19.A
The total potential energy stored in the jar tool and fishing string during the initial pull is easily calculated, but the conversion of energy into motion and useful work after jar release is not easily calculated. Two fishing strings of different equipment or configuration of the equipment but the same stored
potential energy will not produce the same amount of useful work. McDaniel makes this conclusion in
his study of Jarring where the Jar was modeled as four separate areas3 He states that when a rod is
stretched and released on one end, that end will take off at the free contraction velocity,

where:
Vfc = free contraction velocity, ft/sec
P
=force
C
= speed of sound in material, Wsec. 16,800 Wsec in steel
E
= Youngs modulus
A
= cross sectional area
A velocity wave of magnitude Vfcwill move from the released end toward the other end. The front of
the wave travels at the speed of sound in steel. The material ahead of the wave is at rest and the
material behind the wave is traveling at Vfc McDaniel points out that if the strain energy stored in the
rod is set equal to its kinetic energy,

where:
P
=force
L
= length
A
= cross sectional area
E
= Youngs modulus
= density of string material
p
V
= velocity
The variables that affect the force and energy transmitted to the area of the fish include collar size
(when using drill collars), pipe size, maximum safe overpull, collar string length, and position of the jar
in the collar string. Skeem describes the balance between impact force and impulse (pull) dictated by
the position of the jar?

Overpull and collar cross section define the hammer speed at release. The higher hammer speed at
impact, due to the acceleration of the collars above the jar, is determined by the ratio of the collar and
pipe cross sections, the stroke, and the jar position. For a fixed number of collars between the stuck
point and the drillpipe, the impact speed and, hence, the impact force increases as the jar is placed
further from the stuck point. On the other hand, the impulse delivered decreases under the same conditions. This inverse relation between impact force and impulse delivered implies a (defined) jar placement exists for maximum jarring effectiveness depending on the combination of impact force and
impulse desired. The latter is governed by the nature of the sticking force
This relationship is shown schematically in Figure 26.7 for jar position vs. force. Other data is available in the work of Skeem, et al, and of Daniel, et al.

19.A- 10

Chapter 20s Plug and Abandonment Procedures

Every well will eventually have to be plugged and abandoned. If the process is done correctly, it is a
permanent procedure, if not, the well fluids can leak to the surface, allow surface fluids to leak into the
reservoir or allow crossflow of produced fluids from one zone to another. Any of these problems can
cause extensive environmental and/or reservoir damage.
Leaks of brine and hydrocarbons into domestic water drinking supplies are an increasing problem
from producing or abandoned oil and gas wells. The information in the following paragraphs was generated in the U.S. by the General Accounting Office and reflects a problem which must be settled by
effective completion, monitoring, and abandonment of all types of wellbores. The most common
sources of contaminant entry into underground drinking water supplies were:
1. Cracks in injection wells. This may be splits in the casing with subsequent matrix injection or

uncontrolled fracturing that has linked perforated productive zones to fresh water aquifers or
other zones that allow cross flow to the aquifers. (It may also be channels in the cement. authors note)
2. Injection directly into drinking water zones. This is generally the case where corrosion or accidental perforations have opened up a channel into underground freshwater zones.
3. Injected brine cross flow through improperly plugged and abandoned wells. This method of entry
is most common in old fields where channels exist along the outside of casing through a poor primary cement job or where wells not in use allow brine to flow from the injected zone up to freshwater zones.

Of the approximately 1.2 million abandoned oil and gas wells in the United States12over 200,000 of
these wells have been judged to be not properly plugged. Since the volume of produced salt water
brine exceeds the volume of oil production by approximately 7:l in the U.S.,the brine leakage problem can be severe. Chloride concentration of most oil field brine ranges from a few hundred to over
150,000 ppm while the drinking water limit is 500 ppm, thus it does not take much chloride to effectively contaminate a drinking water zone.
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) under the UIC (Underground Injection Control) program
has placed the following designations on disposal wells.
Class 1 - hazardous waste, non-hazardous industrial waste, and municipal waste. The disposal
zones of these wells must be located deeper than the deepest source of drinking water.
Class 2 - oil and gas operations.
Class 3 - special processes such as mineral production
Class 4 - hazardous waste above underground zones of drinking water. (These wells are now strictly
iIlegal.)
Class 5 - All other injection wells which do not fit in one of the above categories.
Of the 253,000 injection wells in the United States, 160,265 were a Class 2. These were located in 31
states.

20-1

The guidelines for active injection wells are beginning to be tightened and the P&A procedures on
older wells are being reviewed in almost all U.S. areas to reduce the risk of underground contamination. The primary plan then for P&A procedures is to permanently isolate both the producing intervals,
the fresh water zones, and the zones of potential cross flow. Never depend upon the casing to form a
lasting barrier to flow.

Legal Requirements
Abandonment of any type of well is covered by very specific (and often inconsistent) regulations
designed to prevent pollution. Because this is a book on well completion, the reader is left to dig out
the local laws on plug and abandonment. The true purpose of the abandonment job is to stop all the
individual permeable zones from flowing or accepting fluid and that is where this book will focus.
There are a number of procedures and products that can be used for P&A jobs. The correct type to
use will depend upon local regulations and how long the well is to be abandoned and the severity of
the well conditions. The trend in all environmental regulations is for the rules to become tougher. The
best approach to P&A, therefore, is to do the job right. Initial plug and abandonment costs may be
high, but they are small compared to the costs of cleanup of problems caused by a leaking well.

Setting Cement Plugs

Downhole plugs of cement are usually set to seal off, either temporarily or permanently, a zone of
unwanted production or a zone that will be held in reserve for an extended period of time. Plugs are
also useful in sealing off an entire well when the well is to be plugged and abandoned. Cement plugs
are only one of several methods of sealing off a zone; however, if they are placed correctly, they represent the most leak proof and mechanically trouble free of the alternatives.
Plugging a well with cement may seem to be an easy task, but the correct use of cement to obtain a
usable plug requires skilled operators and good equipment. There are three basic factors which influence the setting and permanence of a cement plug: (1) the condition of the mud or drilling fluid in the
hole, (2) the volume and type of cement used, and (3)the placement technique used to set the plug.
The first thing considered in a plugging operation is the conditioning of the mud or wellbore fluid currently in the hole. Conditioning the mud in this case means bringing it to the correct density, viscosity
and chemical content. If fluids are not properly conditioned prior to contact of cement, the cement plug
may never be successfully set. A number of the additives which are currently used to give mud special
properties have the effect of retarding cement slurries to the point of not setting at all. The composition
of the mud in the hole must be known along with its general condition before a plug job can be successfully designed. Most failures of plugging operations are due directly to mud contamination or
inability to float the cement on the mud in the hole.4~~
The best fluid that can be used to set a cement
plug is a freshly prepared, gelled mud slurry which has sufficient density or a high enough viscosity to
keep the cement plug from migrating up or down the hole due to the difference in density between the
cement and the mud. Cement has a density of approximately 16.4 Ib/gal for regular Class G and H
cement blends down to 11.5 Ib/gal or less for light weight blends. Mud in most P&A jobs range from 9
to 10 Ib/gal. If the density of an ungelled mud is more than the cement used for the plug, the cement
slurry will finger down the wellbore and a plug will not be created. The fingering of the cement through
the mud also mixes the mud with the cement (contaminating the cement) and may prevent the plug
from setting, even when very large volumes of cement are used. The only way to float a heavy cement
on top of a lighter mud is to increase the viscosity of the mud high enough to resist the intrusion of the
cement. This resistance to intrusion of the cement is similar to the yield point, or first resistance to
flow, in a Bingham plastic fluid. Although viscosity alone may work in a Newtonian fluid, the yield point
or initial stiffness of the Bingham plastic fluids will be an advantage in plug setting without requiring
unneeded and expensive viscosity.
The second factor of plug setting is the selection of the plug material. A cement slurry for a plug must
have durability in contact with the drilling fluids in the hole as well as good bonding characteristics to
the pipe or formation. A long enough column of cement should be used so that it is capable of with-

20-2

standing the weight of drill pipe without being pushed out of position. The bond with the formation is
critical to the success of a plug both from a adhesion standpoint and from the elimination of any leakage into or out of the permeable zones. Increasing the bonding to the formation is accomplished by
cleaning the mud cake from the wall and selection of the proper place for setting the plug. Cleaning of
the mud cake and other natural accumulations from the bore hole wall requires scratchers or abrasion
by preflushes containing dispersants or other materials to facilitate cleaning of the wall. As with primary cementing, however, when the formation-masking deposits are removed, leakoff will be
increased. As an integral part of well completion, plug and abandonment procedures have the same
first goal: WELL CONTROL. Never assume that a P&A job cannot blow out high pressure salt water
flows are common and can be extremely damaging to surface environment and shallow fresh water
supply sands.

The primary objectives in plug and abandonment procedures are: (1) to prevent the contamination or
depletion of any formation based resource, (2) to prevent communication of subterranean fluids and
surface fluids, and (3) to safely secure the surface of the well so that accidental entry is impossible.
Many of the cave-ins around old wellheads result from the setting of poor quality or insufficient length
plugs. When the steel casing corrodes sufficiently, surface water leakage is possible and the flow of
water may carry very large volumes of soil into the well, creating surface and/or underground washouts. Never expect the steel casing to be a long term, integral part of the plugging system in the well
unless it is both surrounded by and filled with cement.
The type of cement used should also match the formation characteristics. For instance, a salt saturated cement is useful for plugs set in salt formations. In most cases, an API Class G or H cement with
a dispersant to allow low water content is the best cement blend. The low water content allows a
slightly more dense cement slurry which may achieve optimum strength and resist mud contamination.
The low water content cement also achieves strength more rapidly than a higher water content
cement and has better fluid loss control than other cements. It is often advantageous to use a swelling
cement when placing a plug to get the benefit of its better bonding characteristics caused by the slight
expansion of the cement while setting.
Placement of the plug is the third critical factor of plug procedures. The physical location of a plug may
differ with its intended location. The problem is usually caused by the higher density cement fingering
down through the mud. The plug and abandonment laws and designs usually specify a solid cement
plug extending from 50 ft above to 50 ft below any fresh water zone or other productive zone. In cases
where there is no cement behind the pipe or when the cement quality is unknown or even suspect, the
pipe must be perforated 50 ft below the deepest usable water zone and cement circulated through the
perfs and up the annulus to surface. Other considerations are setting plugs at liner tops and a thick
plug near the surface to prevent accidental entry or flow when the wellhead is removed. Placement of
a plug is generally done by one of three methods.
The balance method involves pumping the cement down the drill pipe or tubing and up to a calculated
height which would balance the pressure exerted from the cement in and outside the pipe. This pressure balanced tubing effect can be used to create a stable plug; provided that the mud that is currently
in the hole will support the cement without allowing the cement to move through the mud by density
difference. When a lightweight mud is to be used to spot a 16.4 Ib/gallon cement slurry, then the mud
must be gelled to prevent the cement from moving through the mud. The balance calculation can be
accomplished with the following f o r m ~ l a . ~

H=- N

C+ T

where:
H
N

= height of balanced cement column

= ft3 of cement slurry used

20-3

= ft3 per linear ft of annular space between tubing and casing or hole
= ft3 per linear ft inside tubing

T
In the application of cement plugs for either temporary or permanent plug and abandonment procedures, the failure rate of setting cement plugs is quite high. The most common field practice is to use
open-ended drill pipe or tubing to spot a 16.4 Ib/gal cement slurry onto a column of mud in the wellbore. This type of treatment has several drawbacks, the most significant of which is severe plug failure
due to density differences and stringing of the cement down one side of the mud column, Figure 20.1.

et al., JPT, 1984)

Figure 20.1:

Density segregation of cement through a

lighter mud when trying to set a plug.

used a model to spot

In a paper that reported the results of a cement plug setting study, Smith, et
various types of cement on gelled and ungelled mud and studied the success ratio of the treatment. In
this work, it was found that when a gelled pill of mud was spotted in the wellbore and the cement was
spotted on top of the pill, the success of the plug setting procedure went up dramatically. In most
cases using the bentonite pill, a 13.6 Ib/gal cement slurry could be spotted on top of a 9 Ib/gal mud.
The bentonite pill which was spotted immediately below the section where the plug was to be set was
the same weight as the rest of the mud in the hole but heavily gelled to resist the viscous fingering
e f f e ~ t Even
. ~ with the higher viscous bentonite plug, the higher weight slurries such as 13.817.5 Iblgal cement still fingered through the mud and collected near the bottom of the test borehole.
An improvement on the bentonite pill procedure was to use a diverter tool as shown schematically in
Figure 20.2. In this tool, the flow of the cement is turned 90"to the downward direction. By changing
the direction of the cement, the velocity component produced by pumping the cement is negated and
the cement could be set with almost a 100% success rate on the gelled pill, provided mud and cement
weights were within a 4 Ib/gal difference. Even with the diverter tool, when higher weight cements
were used, particularly those of over 4 Ib/gal difference from the mud, the cement plug would fail.
Even with the diverter device, the velocity of pumping should be relatively low to prevent setting up
pressure gradients that might lead to a flowing condition in the well during placement. If the well flows
during the placement of a cement plug, the gas or water flow percolating through the cement will honeycomb the cement structure so that it is permeable or retard the cement to the point that it never
hardens. In a deviated well, there can easily be circulation within the wellbore: down the low side of
the pipe and up the high side. This condition has been seen repeatedly in tests of production logging
tools such as spinners and tracer profiling tools, especially when a small amount of gas is available to
lighten the fluids on the high side of the pipe and initiate the upward movement of fluid. With this type
of flow, unset plugs can be rapidly destroyed.

20-4

9.0 #/Gal Mud

Spacer
16.0 #/Gal Cement
Diverter Tool
4 Holes Phased 4 5 O

9.1 #/Gal Bentonite

Pill Spacer

4 Holes

9.0 #/Gal Mud

Bull Plug

(Smith et al., JPT, 1984)

Figure 20.2: The diverter tool (left) used to deflect the cement
toward the borehole or casing wall. A bentonite spacer
helps prevent density segregation of the fluids.

An alternative to the open end tubing is the use of a cement retainer. The cement is squeezed under
pressure into the retainer, and the retainer itself helps prevent density segregation. Bridge plugs or
packers may also be set prior to the cementing operation to keep the cement from moving through the
mud. They are not commonly used due to their expense but they are very effective.
A second method of cement plug placement is with a dump bailer. The bailer, which is run on wireline,
is run to the necessary depth, and cement is flowed out of the bailer into the area used for the plug.
Normally, several bailer runs are employed to get the required volume of cement over the zone. Accurate depth control is a necessity. Placement of cement with a bailer often leads to severe mud contamination of the cement since the operation of the bailer continuously stirs up the mud and cement. The
technique should only be used where the mud in the hole will not affect the cement setting characteristics. A thicker plug is also recommended. Time must be allowed between the bailer runs for the
cement placed by each run to take an initial set or to build some gel strength. The bailer method is
commonly used in shallower zones or for plugs other than those used for permanent abandonment of
the well.
The two plug method is the third positioning method for cement. This method involves a similar plug
design to that used in primary cementing. The bottom plug is used to isolate the cement and the mud
in the string as the cement is pumped down the pipe. At some point where the plug is to be set, a plug
catcher is placed in the tubulars to catch the plug as it is pumped out of the string. The cement following then fills the annulus around the pipe. The top plug which follows the cement causes a pressure
rise when it hits the bottom of the pipe ensuring that a signal of cement positioning has been passed.
This string may then be pulled up out of the cement plug and the plug left to harden. Mud conditioning
is still required.
Additional equipment is available to help in setting the plug. This equipment usually involves the running of scratchers through the plug setting interval to help remove mud cake. Regardless of the plug
setting methods used, two operations should follow the plugging operation: (1) tagging the plug to
make sure it is in the right place and (2) pressure testing the plug to make sure that there are no leaks.

20-5

Ground

Mud-fllled hole

---

Cement plug

-.

---

Freshwater strata below surface casing

Cement plug

Open hole, mud fllled

Cement plug
Casing stub, may or may not be in hole

Open hole, mud fllled

Cement plug

---.---.
L

Production strata, may be with casing and perforations

-- -.

(McNally, PEI, Sept. 1990)

Figure 20.3: An idealized case of plugs set during a plug and abandonment operation. in real cases, plug thicknesses may be
much in excess of what is required by law. Cement tops
are always tagged to make sure of the location.

Other Plugging Processes

Cement is by far the most durable of the plugging methods, but it is not the only method. The processes divide into two categories: settable liquids and mechanical tools. Soft gels of sodium silicate
and hard plastics are available for temporary or permanent sealing of annulus or formation. Various
mechanical isolation tools, such as bridge plugs, are also available.
Settable liquids include the cement slurries described in the preceding section, plus the organic resins, polymer gels and inorganic gels. The advantages of the non-cement liquids is that they can penetrate the permeable formation to some distance and set up a secondary seal. The ability to invade the
formation is particularly important when extensive natural or hydraulically created fractures exist.
Cement will not extend into a thin natural fracture or a proppant packed fracture because of its high
viscosity and fluid dehydration properties. Since fractures may extend far above and below the pay; to
get a complete shutoff requires either filling the wellbore to a point above the uppermost reach of the
fracture, or plugging the fracture. When two or more permeable zones have been linked by a fracture,
the fracture itself needs to be plugged. Plugging a proppant packed fracture can be accomplished by
permanent gelling resins or inorganic gels, injected at just below the fracture extension pressure of
the formation. Most organic polymers should be avoided for permanent plugging since the seal needs
to be permanent and not susceptible to decomposition of the organic structure or bacterial attack.
Mechanical tools are usually used in the placement of cement or other fluid based, plugging mediums.
The tools are usually packers, bridge plugs, and blanking plugs that can positively position or isolate
the treatment. Although these tools represent an acceptable method of temporary abandonment, their
use in a permanent abandonment should be studied carefully to be certain that the corrosion characteristics on metal and elastomer seals are acceptable. Besides corrosion limits, the mechanical tools
can only seal at the wellbore; fractures and channels beyond the casing can not be affected.

20-6

Milling a Packer

When a permanent packer must be removed, a milling operation is necessary. The explanation and
figures used in this description is courtesy of Camco. The objective is to remove all of the packer
without damaging the casing. There are three basic methods.
1. Mill over the outer portion (slips and packing element) and retrieve remains or push them to bot-

tom.
2. Drill packer up completely with a flat bottom mill.
3. Chop up packer with a sand line drill.
Milling the outer portion of the packer is the most common. Milling up the entire packer takes more
time than overshot milling. Sand line drills are drill collars (for weight) with a chisel tip (cable tool drill).
The assembly is attached to the rigs sand line (braided winch cable). The method is used in very shallow wells where it is not possible to apply enough weight for effective rotary milling. The packer is
tagged with bit (location marked on the sand line at surface) and then the rig operator will pick up the
sand line about 30 to 40 ft and let it drop. The packer is chopped up by the bit.
When the outer parts of the packer are to be milled, an overshot mill is used. The packer spear is run
through the bore of the packer and unjayed. Pulling up on the string then drives the teeth out and
catches the bottom of the packer. The mill shoe is unjayed from the spear allowing the spear to remain
stationary as the mill burns over (cuts) the packer. The overshot design of the upper part of the mill
shoe housing allows remaining sections to be swallowed. After the seals and bottom slips are milled
through, the remnants of the packer can be pulled.

References Plug and Abandonment

1. Government Accounting Office: Safeguards and Not Preventing Contamination From Injected
Oil and Gas Wastes, Report GAOIRCED 89-97, July 1989.
2. American Petroleum Institute Data.
3. Oddo, J. E.,Tomson, M. B.: A Discussion of the Calcium Carbonate Scaling Problems and Solutions with Respect to Produced Brines, SPE 19763, SPE Annu. Tech. Mtg., San Antonio, Oct. 811, 1989.
4. Herndon, J., Smith, D. K.: Setting Plugs: A State-of-the-Art, Pet. Eng. Int. (April 1978), 56, 60,
62, 64, 69, 71.
5. Scott, J.: Completion Technology Includes Plugging Too, Pet. Eng. Int. (Feb. 1971), 46-48.

6. Smith, R. C., Beirute, R. M., Holman, G. B., Jr.,: Improved Method of Setting Successful
Cement Plugs, J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1984), pp. 1897-1904.
7. Fredrickson, S.E., Broaddus, G. C.: Selective Placement of Fluids in a Fracture by Controlling
Density and Viscosity, Paper SPE 5629,50th Annual Meeting, Dallas, September 28-October 1,
1975.
8. Camco: Permanent Packer Milling Procedure, Camco Products and Services Co., Copyrighted
1991.

20-7

Chapter 21: Effects of Completion, Stimulation and

Workover Activities on Surface Facility
Operations
Although the discussion of surface facilities is unusual for a book on completion and workover operations, it is necessary to understand the effects of workover, stimulation and completion fluids on the
surface-treating facilities.
Surface facilities, Figure 1, exist for separation and treatment of produced fluids. The oldest examples
of surface facilities have been simple water separation tanks where gravity was sufficient to separate
the water from the produced oil. Although the techniques have become considerably more complex
during the development of surface facilities, the goal is still the same. The materials produced from a
well may include gas, solids, hydrocarbon liquids and various concentrations of salt in water. Separation of these materials for sale or for disposal is necessary for efficient handling.

To Compressor

Blanket
Gas

Fuel?
To Oil
Storage

*
From
Wells
Separat

To Water
Treating

@ = Level controller
@ = Pressure controller
@ FIOW meter
Figure 21.1

The first stage in the separation begins downstream of the pressure-regulating devices or well outlets.
In wells that produce large amounts of gas and liquids, gas vent in the line (often called a gas buster)
removes part of the produced volume and much of the mixing energy that inhibits fluid separation.
Other gas removal steps usually follow and multiple stage separations can conserve pressure, an
important design consideration in gas handling. Fluids from a single well or from multiple wells may
then be gathered into a separator or freewater knockout, Figure 2, to do a quick separation of the
water that will separate easily from the crude oil or gas. This simple step reduces the treating stream
and splits off an easily disposed segment of the produced fluid. The water that exits from the freewater

21-1

knockout will also take a certain amount of solids, such as corrosion by-products or particles from the
formation that have been lifted by the hydrocarbons.
To
Compression

Ic

From Well

FWKO

i
I

To Water Skimmer

Figure 21.2: Freewater Knockout

Removal of the solids by settling or filtration is necessary to prevent filling the wellbore and/or fracture
with debris. Because of their simplicity, settling tanks are much more economical than the filtration
systems which may require manual labor to process. Design of settling tanks are more scientific than
is apparent at first glance. Studies have shown that swirl designs produced by critically placed inlet
nozzles are more efficient at solids separation than straight settling. Without the inlet direction, flow
through the tank often follows a path through the middle of the tank, leaving liquid along the sides
undisturbed and results in the whole tank volume not being efficiently used.
The oil stream leaving the freewater knockout will still contain some water and some solids, as well as
gas. When gas is present in large quantities, a gas vent to the compressor or pipeline will also be
made in the freewater knockout. This removes an additional component of the produced fluid and
decreases the size of downstream treating vessels.
The next vessel in the operation is usually a treating device of some type to break more stable mixtures of gas or oil. Most treaters are either horizontal or vertical vessels, where the hydrocarbon and
water go through a final separation to produce pipeline quality oil and gas, and disposable water.
Some gas may also be vented off at this step into the collection system to the pipeline. Although most
crude oil and water emulsions break very quickly, some emulsions are stabilized by either viscosity,
solids, chemical action or charge, and require treatment to gain the final separation. The size of the
separators is determined by the total amount of fluids flowing through the separators, the difficulty in
separating the hydrocarbon and water phases, and the occurrence of special conditions such as

21-2

upsets, stimulation treatments or production of solids. Separators may be liquid-liquid separators,

gas-liquid or gas-liquid-liquid separators. The residence time is the time the fluids spend in the separator. The time should allow the liquids to separate and the gas bubbles to rise to the surface. Generally, the time to break an emulsion is a function of the stability of the emulsion. Where a small amount
of water is stable in a crude, a set time is allocated to separate the majority of the water, Figure 3, and
other methods are necessary to separate the last of the water from the oil. The final treating level or
amount of water in the oil is set by the maximum BS&W (Basic Sediment and Water) content of the
sales contract.

Water

hw/h

Time
Figure 21.3

Emulsions are composed of two or more immiscible phases that have been mixed with each other with
sufficient energy to produce a dispersion of one phase into another. If the emulsions are stable, then a
stabilizing agent such as surfactant, solids, viscosity, charge, pH or reactants is slowing the coalescence of the droplets of the dispersed phase. Emulsion treating focuses on destroying the stabilizing
mechanism in the emulsion. Although most downhole treatments focus on solvents and surfactants to
break emulsions, surface treating usually focuses on dilute surfactants and heat in some cases. Surface facilities may also utilize neutralization of pHs to achieve a break. When continuous treating is
necessary, the economics dictate that specific solutions to generate the lowest cost break be made in
every case. The breaking of an emulsion begins with removal of the stabilizing agent. This allows the
droplets of the internal phase to join together and make larger droplets in a step called coalescence.
Coalescence is the joining of small droplets to make larger drops. It is the first step in emulsion separation and is improved by low energy mixing, decreases in viscosity, heat (which decreases viscosity),
dilution (which decreases viscosity), and contact with the wall of the container which produces the
wetting-out of the droplet.

21-3

The viscosity of an emulsion is usually dependent on the continuous phase or the external phase. In
most oilfield operations, emulsions are either oil-in-water (water is the continuous phase) or water-inoil (oil is the continuous phase). At internal phase concentrations of less than 54%, the viscosity of the
emulsion is approximately the same as the viscosity of the external fluid. At internal phase concentrations of up to 72%, the viscosity rises slowly, as is shown in Figure 4. This is due to the droplets contacting each other as the emulsion changes shape during flow. When the concentration passes 72%
for a monodispersed (equal bubble size) emulsion, the viscosity builds extremely quickly because the
droplets must deform to flow by one another when the emulsion is moving. The emulsion becomes
steadily more viscous until approximately 96% internal phase concentration where the emulsion may
invert and swap the places of the internal and external phases. At this point the viscosity will fall
sharply, and the viscosity of the emulsion will be the same as the new external fluid.

Internal Phase Concentration

Dilute

Contact

Inversio n

Deformation

54%
Internal Phase Concentration

CI

.
I

v)

0
0
v)

Figure 21.4

Temperature has an effect on the settling rate of droplets since an increase in temperature will
decrease viscosity and the specific gravity. Over 150' , however, temperature may promote mixing,
since many of the light ends are nearing the boiling point. In general, crude emulsion separation by
temperature is a last resort. When heated, oils lose volume and API gravity decreasing the value of
the crude oil. The specific gravity of the oil is related to its API gravity by:

OAP1 = -141S 131.5

S.G.
The specific gravity of the gas is a function of the molecular weight, MW.

21-4

S.G.

MW
29

The viscosity of emulsions is approximated by:

peff = effective viscosity of emulsion

= viscosity of the continuous phase
= volume fraction of discontinuous phase.
$

Salts can form a unique problem in treating. Although most salts are soluble in water, very high concentrations of salts in the produced water may actually mix in with the oil as the crude wets part of the
oil. If water volume is lost due to evaporation, the salt becomes more concentrated, and can be produced with the crude. Salt content is a function of salt content in the water and quantity of water in the
oil. Removal of the water removes most of this dissolved salt. However, solid salt may occur from
cooling, evaporation and pressure loss. This solid salt will be carried by the oil or water, with high viscosity oil being an excellent carrier. Treating of salts is usually done in a vessel known as a desalter,
another secondary treating vessel. In these treating vessels, fresh water is often mixed with the oil to
remove the salt particles. Since salt production is relatively constant, treatment with water is fairly
consistent. After stimulations, however, salt contents may change dramatically (usually decreases) for
a few weeks.
Control Valve
Inlet Divertor

Mist Extract0

Water Weir

Level Control Valves

Figure 21.5: One type of a horizontal separator.

Separators may be vertical, horizontal or, less commonly, spherical. The type of separator required
will depend on the application and the preferences of the system designer. Horizontal separators,
Figure 5, are more efficient in gas separation and in liquid/liquid separation. Vertical separators,
Figure 6, are better for handling solids and in tolerating surges. The sizing of separators involves gas
separation, droplet coalescence and settling, and the retention time required to accomplish these two
functions. Retention time takes into account the separation of all fluids at some design flow rate. Separation time will typically range from 3 to 30 minutes. The amount of dispersed or internal phase in the
emulsion will affect the coalescence time. In general, decreasing internal phase will lengthen the

21-5

required coalescence time (few drops to collide) and higher viscosity of the external phase will
lengthen the required coalescence time (fewer drop collisions will lead to larger drops).

.Mist E x t r a c t or

Inlet Diverter

Downcomer

eve1 Control

Figure 21.6: Vertical separator with spreader.

The effects of stimulation, completion and workover chemicals are usually seen during the backflow of
these chemicals into the treaters. Acid backflow is accompanied by higher concentrations of chlorides,
calcium, iron and a few other minerals, as well as solids from undissolved particles, corrosion by-products, and low pH fluids. Disturbances in the chemical equilibrium and separation of oil and water
phases following a stimulation treatment are known as upsets. These upsets create problems in the
normal separation of emulsions. In most cases, separation of these fluids can be handled easily. However, special conditions such as return of low pH fluids or very high iron content fluids may create
almost unbreakable emulsions if correct procedures are not followed. Handling these emulsions
requires treatment of the stabilizing influence. In most acidizing treatments, it has been found that
treatment of the stimulation fluid or the overflush with a small amount of mutual solvent can prevent
emulsions during the backflow. In these cases, the mutual solvent is actually reducing the surface tension of the aqueous phase and the viscosity of the oil phase. These actions help break and prevent
emulsions. Additionally, the mutual solvent wets the surfaces of emulsion-stabilizing fines such as
feldspar and silica. The complete wetting of these surfaces takes them away from the active droplet
interface.

21-6

Stimulation Flowbacks
Returning acid from any type stimulation or workover may be a serious problem if not handled correctly. Returning acids may be accompanied by emulsions, organic solvents, surfactants, metal ions,
solid debris, corrosion products and live acid. Because of the variety of acid backflow components,
treatment is varied. Knowledge of the injected fluid and the formation interactions are helpful to avoid
problems. Disposal of the backflowed acid may require pH adjustments, oil/water separation, or classification as a waste stream. Local regulations will set the disposal conditions.
Acid backflow treating and disposal is not a complicated process but several easily gathered pieces of
information are needed to prevent future problems, both with the well and with environmental regulations. Using a treatment with only the required volume, strength of acid and additives is beneficial from
an economic well treating standpoint as well as an acid disposal process. When hydrochloric acid is
spent on carbonate formations, the reaction products are calcium chloride salt and water. The concentration of the salt in the reaction product depends on the initial concentration of the acid. With 15%
HCI, for example, the total chlorides in the acid backflow reach about 70,000 ppm unless the backflow
is diluted heavily by a fresher produced water. Disposal of a salt water is usually not a serious problem: it is the additional materials in the backflow that make the acid a waste product.

Testing the Backflow

Causes of Upsets

Treater upsets by emulsions is a common occurrence in many areas following acidizing. Upsets may
last from a few hours to a few days. A variety of causes of these emulsions have been found and most
involve the materials in the acid backflow. From studies of industry wells, properties and materials in
the acid backflow include:
1. Spent and unspent acids from 0 to 12% HCI.

2. Surface tension (initial 30 dynes/cm) from 35 to 50+ (untreated water is 72 dynes/cm).

3. Densities of 8.7 to 9.5 Ib/gal (initial acid was 15%).
4. Iron contents of 500 ppm to 70,000 ppm. (typical total iron contents from 500 to 11,000 ppm for

sweet wells and up to 20,000 for H2S wells).

5. Sodium ion contents to 10,000 ppm.
6. Calcium ion contents to 750 ppm in sandstones and over 10,000 ppm in limestones with concentrated acids.
7. Potassium ion contents to 1,000 ppm for HWHF acid jobs.

8. Aluminum ion contents to 10,000 ppm from HCVHF acid jobs.

9. Chloride ion contents from 70,000 to 125,000 depending on initial acid concentration and formation and connate water ions.

10. Sulfate ion contents from 0 to about 150 ppm.

Figure 7 shows an average backflow analysis after acidizing with HCI/HF acid in a Trinidad well. In this
look at the first 95 bbls backflow following a 102 bbl acid job, none of the ions were beginning to stabi-

21-7

lize. In other analyses, sampling was carried out to 600 barrels of acid backflow. Ion concentration
usually stabilized between 200 and 300 barrels.

Backflow from a Trinidad Well

There can be many causes of treater upsets but emulsions are the most common and often are the
difficult problem to solve. To prevent or break an emulsion, the stabilizing mechanism must be eliminated.
In the following paragraphs, several components of acid backflow will be discussed. Ideal acid backflow from a well stimulation standpoint will have the acid concentration between 1% and 3% concentration. Typical acid backflows have been measured at pH of 7 (acid completely spent)'Oto 12% HCI
from initial 15% acid strength. If returning acid concentration is above 3%, the initial treatment design
may need to be adjusted to reduce acid volume or acid concentration. The purpose of the acid job
should also be reviewed to determine if another acid or solvent could be more effective. Excessive
acid concentration in the backflow is expensive from waste of initial acid cost, cost to neutralize and
production equipment corrosion and facility upsets. Acid corrosion inhibitor quickly adsorbs on the formation. Returning (spent) acid does not usually have any functional corrosion inhibitor remaining.
A special case of facility upset caused by acid corrosion inhibitor has been seen when the acid tanks
were not kept circulated prior to and during pumping of an acid treatment on a well. Most acid corrosion inhibitors are not soluble in acid; they are dispersed and will separate if the tank is not continuously circulated. If a tank of acid is pumped without adequate circulation, the first fluid pumped is acid
with very little corrosion inhibitor and the last fluid injected (and the first seen in the facility on backflow) is nearly pure corrosion inhibitor. Corrosion inhibitor in concentrations over 5 to 10% are sometimes very efficient emulsifiers. Breaking this type of emulsion is difficult; it requires a solvent with
good stripping action to clean and completely water-wet the solids and to clean the metal surface of
the tanks and lines. Mutual solvents with xylene have been used successfully.

Acid concentration of returning acid must be titrated. It cannot be checked with a hydrometer or pH.
Spent acid solutions are CaCI2 brines with densities between 8.5 and nearly 10 Ib/gal. The difference
between live HCI acid and brine cannot be seen by hydrometer. Measurement of pH is only useful for
very low strengths of HCI. For example, all HCI solutions with concentrations from 0.5% through 28%
will have a pH below 1. Changes in this limited range of pH are very difficult to see, even when the
acid strength change is large. If the pH is below 1, the strength should be titrated.
Iron control in the well and in the surface equipment is a top priority. There is a definite link between
iron and asphaltene contents of a solution and the tendency to form sludges and emulsions. Asphaltenes have only a limited solubility in crude oil. They exist as dispersions or micelles, stabilized by
materials called resins and maltenes. The micelle unit may be suspended by a negative surface
charge or other force. Addition of an acid (positive acid protons or hydrogenions) may neutralize the
charge and allow larger aggregates to form, starting a precipitation process. Iron in the spent acid may

21-8

play a significant role in creation of asphaltic stabilized emulsions and sludges. Ferric iron, Fe3+,
appears to be much worse than ferrous iron, Fe2+. Designing an effective treatment for these problems is difficult because the composition of the emulsion and the trigger for its creation changes with
the fluid and well conditions. Field approaches have generally centered on iron reducing attempts and
aromatic solvents to stabilize the asphaltenes. These steps are added to the initial treatment. When
the backflowed fluids create an iron/asphaltene stabilized emulsion or sludge (usually very high viscosity), thinning the emulsion with an aromatic solvent and then adding a demulsifier or desludger are
accepted practices. The problem, however, is in getting contact with the viscous emulsion. Once the
material is in holdinghreating ponds, the mixing opportunity is gone and surface treating and skimming
is often the only alternative. Where possible, known problem backflows should be treated with chemicals in the stimulation treatment, in the overflush or displacement, through a gas lift valve or at the
wellhead prior to the choke. Field experience and testing will identify the proper location.
Testing live and spent acid mixtures (with and without additives) with the crude oil can often help identify problem crudes, but is not fail-safe. Problems often occur when crude streams from several wells
are mixed. In known areas of acid upsets related to crude mixing, an active program of solvent or
emulsion preventer injection at the wellhead is needed. When upsets do occur, collect the following
data:
1. Where was emulsion noticed? (This gives information about creation point and if other crudes

add problems when mixed.) Track the emulsion upstream until the point of creation is identified.
2. What were emulsion characteristics?

a. oil- or water-external?
b. internal phase volume?
c. stabilizing influence(s)?
(1) iron content?
(2) asphaltenes/paraffin content?
(3) polymers?
(4) fluid loss additives?
(5) surfactant usage in job?
(6) other solids/precipitates?
3. Duration of emulsion problem

a. when during flowback did it start (volume flowed and time)?

b. when did it stop (volume flowed and time)?
c. pH at start, stop, and during the upset.
If the acid concentration is at least 1%, the dissolved iron will not precipitate although iron in solution
can still react to form sludges. If the acid concentration is no more than 39'0, the corrosion of the acid
on the tubulars for a short time exposure is significantly lessened. There are two forms or iron; iron +2
(ferrous) and iron +3 (ferric). Ferric iron precipitates as the pH rises above about 1.8 and ferrous iron
precipitates when the pH reaches 7 (acid completely spent). Both forms of iron may be present in the
absence of oxygen, but as soon as the acid returns are exposed to air, the ferrous iron is oxidized to
ferric iron. This is the reason why precipitates form in many spent acid samples a few minutes after
sample collection. The iron precipitates as a hydroxide precipitate and has a green to brown color.
Iron is present in several formation minerals but the primary source of iron is from acid reaction with
corrosion products in the tubulars. Iron from corrosion can be in one or more of the iron oxide materials in sweet wells or one or more of the iron sulfide materials in sour wells. Presence of iron in any
form is enough to trigger viscous emulsions if other components are available. Reduction of iron, even
in sour systems (thought to be already reducing systems) has been found to be necessary. Simple

21-9

chelants such as citric acid and EDTA, and pH control materials such as acetic acid are not effective
at preventing this type of iron-caused emulsion. Ferric iron, theoretically, should not be available in a
reducing environment such as provided by a hydrogen sulfide concentration in the crude oil. However,
sufficient evidence exists that the iron cross-linking is occurring. Part of the issue of iron reduction is
how the reducing agents work and how well the reducer prevents the iron from becoming active in creation of the sludge.
Iron sulfide may exist in many forms in a well. At least eight different forms exist, some with the same
chemical formula but a different shape or appearance.

Mineral

Composition

amorphous (no crystal)

Mackinawite
Pyrrhotite
Pyrite
Marcasite
Smythite
Pyrrhotite

I-es (variable)
Fe& (often listed as FeS)
FeS
FeS2
FeS2
Fe3S4
Fe7S8

The form of the material makes a significant difference in reactivity. Forms of the material such as
Mackinawite are slowly acid soluble, while forms such as Pyrite are almost nonreactive. The surface
area-to-weight or size of the iron sulfide material also is significant. Hard, thick scales of iron sulfide
are very slowly reactive and are probably not involved in the type of reactions discussed here, however, their presence indicates a high iron sulfide availability in the water. Iron sulfide, with a solubility
of about 0.0005 parts in 100 parts water (5ppm), at a pH of 7, should not be classed as a serious
reactant due to the limited concentration. The concentration of iron in a solution is pH sensitive; as the
pH decreases (stronger acid), more iron is soluble. In 15% HCI, for example, field solution have been
analyzed that contain over 70,000 ppm iron. The valence state of the iron is also a factor in solubility.
Ferric iron (+3)is soluble in solutions with pHs below 2.0 (one author reports 1.8). Ferrous iron (+2)is
soluble in solutions with pHs below 7. Presence of an oxidizer can convert ferrous to ferric, and a
reducer can convert ferric to ferrous. The amount of oxidizer or reducer required is a function of the
effectiveness of the oxidizer or reducer, and how much iron of a particular valence state is present.
Other additives can also affect iron availability.
In some field and flowback work, common iron contents range from 500 to 2,000 ppm and higher for
acid from sour wells. The amount of ferric iron in the total iron is variable. Even with the H2S environment, these high iron contents are difficult to reduce from ferric iron to ferrous iron.
There is also another source of iron, existing as one of the iron sulfide materials, in a dispersion in
water. Many of the produced waters in West Texas have this type of iron present. The iron particles
are so small that they can stay suspended easily. They may pass from solution in the liquid to the solid
form and back again rapidly in response to alterations in pH or presence of oxidizers or reducers.
Exposure of this water to oxygen, for example, triggers the black color characteristic of the produced
waters (after aeration) in the West Texas area. This is an oxidizing shift from ferrous to ferric iron. Precipitation of the very fine particles will occur but will happen very slowly. A drop or two of HCI in a beaker of this water will shift the pH lower and cause the black color (and most of the particles) to
immediately disappear. Both solubilized iron and the very finely divided iron may react with the sludges.
One of the first conclusions of the early tests was that the surfactants by themselves would not prevent the sludge. Although some surfactants were found that were more effective than others, the general finding was that when iron loaded acid was mixed with a sludging oil, presence of a surfactant or
even a high solvent capacity solvent would not prevent the formation of the gel and the sludge. Mul-

21-10

tichemical tests with iron control materials and surfactants found a few combinations that would prevent the sludges.
The conclusions with the iron control materials were even more striking than the solvenVsurfactant
work. Iron control is commonly approached with one of three methods: pH control (acetic acid), a
chelating agent (citric acid or EDTA) or with an iron reducing agent. Iron exists in solution in an ionized
state or as finely dispersed colloidal particles in rarer cases.
The traditional thinking has been that the iron creates damage by precipitating from solution as gellanteous iron hydroxide as the pH rises in the spending acid. The pH at which the iron precipitates
depends on its valence state, ferric iron (Fe+3)precipitates at a pH of 2, while ferrous iron (Fe+2)precipitates at a pH of about 7. Ferrous iron converts or oxidizes to ferric iron in the presence of oxygen.
Control of iron with acetic acid is limited, at best. The organic acids spend to an equilibrium under
pressure, leaving a small amount of live acid at temperatures below 160F. The live acid gradually
spends with time, even at pressure. As long as it remains, this trace of acid keeps the pH low and
helps prevent the precipitation of iron. The valence state of the iron was thought to be relatively unimportant, as long as the pH was held low or the iron molecule was tied up by a chelant.
In these early tests, however, both the acetic acid and the chelating agents were founds to be ineffective at stopping the sludge, even with a good solvent or surfactant. The results were relatively consistent with either live acid (20% HCI) or acid spent on sodium hydroxide or dolomite formation fragments
The conclusion from the tests was that the iron was entering into a reaction with some component of
the oil without precipitating from solution.
The best sludge control system from these tests incorporated an iron reducer and an effective surfactant.
In a few of the tests, particularly with oils that were very prone to formation of sludges, a good dispersing surfactant worked better than a solvent. The reason for the surfactants success appears to center
on the interrupting effect (dispersant quality) of the surfactant in preventing some component of the
oil from gaining viscosity during the attempted sludge formation process. The exact mechanism is still
unknown.
The sludge formed in the tests would enter a gelled state first, followed by slow formation of a semisolid mass. The mass resembled cottage cheese in consistency and would not pass through a
100 mesh screen.
Tests for prevention of the sludge focused on finding effective combinations of iron reducer and surfactant. During these tests in two laboratories, the need for a combination of iron reducer and effective
surfactant were repeatedly seen.
Emulsions are physical mixtures of oil and water. Because of phase separation and density segregation forces, the oil and water will separate into distinct phases quickly if there are no stabilizing mechanisms. Stabilizing mechanisms include surfactants (either natural or added compounds), fines and
component fluid viscosity. Surfactant and fines stabilization often work in combination. Added surfactants that are common in backflowed acid include corrosion inhibitors, diverting agents, fluid loss additives, foamers, silt suspenders, soaps, oil base mud emulsifiers, and several other materials. The
most common surfactant is excess corrosion inhibitor resulting from poor surface acid mixing before
the job.
Natural surfactants in some crudes along with iron can make some very stable emulsions. Testing with
the freshly produced oil and the acid and spent acid can often spot these problems. Treatment is usually by adding a mutual solvent to the job, to the afterflush or by adding it at the well head during backflow. Oil base mud cleanups are best addressed with aromatic solvents and then with acids and
mutual solvents.

21-11

Acid flowback emulsion stabilization by fines is usually by very small particles of 5 to 100 microns.
Common materials that act as stabilization are silt, clays, asphaltenes, paraffins, acid precipitates,
scale, corrosion products, polymer, drill cuttings, and partially dissolved acidizing reactants. These
solids are very common in backflowed acid. The solids gather at the interface of the oil and water
droplets because they are partially wetted with both phases. Treating involves use of a mutual solvent
to water wet the particles, lower the interfacial tension and drop the materials from suspension.
Viscosity stabilization is rarer but does occur with viscous crudes. The emulsion is more of an entrapment of the spent acid in the oil phase. As the internal phase increases, viscosity increases due to
droplet deformation and resistance to flow. Solvents are normally used to thin the external phase
hydrocarbon. Mixing is critical, so the solvents should be injected as far upstream of the treater as is
practical.
Precipitates are usually limited to iron but do occasionally include sulfate scales that have a temporary
solubility in live acid. Mixing high sulfate waters with spent acids (concentrated calcium) can produce
quick precipitations of calcium sulfate scale. This scale precipitation is hard to prevent: most scale
inhibitors do not work well below a pH of 3. Avoid mixing the acid with incompatible waters (high in sulfate, barium, or other ions) for best results.
Returning spent acids should contain debris or solids. If returning acids are clear, the well is probably
not being cleaned. Continued damage, emulsions, and very slow cleanup can be signs of poor
cleanup.

Flowback Duration
There is no accurate method to predict the acid flowback time or volume. Wells have generally flowed
back the last major traces of injected solutions after a volume of two to five time the injected volume
has been recovered. During the recovery period, mineral contents will vary widely as seen by the
recovered fluid analysis over 320 bbls of backflow following a 90 bbl acid job (HCI and HCVHF) on a
Trinidad well, Figure 8. In this data, most of the mineral contents begin to stabilize to near formation
water values after about 250 bbls. The pH, which is the best indicator in most sandstone acid jobs,
begins to increase after about 220 bbls. Because treatment conditions vary from well to well, a prediction of normal operations should only be made after checking the individual well response. In sandstones, pH is suggested as a indicator of acid returns; in limestones, the calcium ion is a possible
indicator if rapid acid spending causes pHs to be high on flowback. Chloride ion content can be measured quickly, but is only a good indicator when the connate waters are very much different in chloride
content than the spent acid.
10,000

I
Q

1,000

U"
M

$e

100

10

,"

Figure 21.8: Acid Backflow Mineral Returns on a 90 bbl Stimulation on Trinidad Poui B-16XX

21-12

Treating the Returning Acid

The choice between pipelining the acid backflow along with the produced hydrocarbons to a treating
facility and treating at the well or tank battery depends on the on-site equipment and the potential corrosion to the pipeline and treating facility.
Fluids with any acid strength may cause problems. Acid neutralization is often linked to solving corrosion and treater upset problems. Soda ash or sodium bicarbonate is used to neutralize the acid after
an acid strength determination is made. The neutralization is performed in a small batch tank with
some method of mixing. Neutralization time is usually brief but depends on volumes and mixing. pH is
monitored until the acid is above a predetermined limit that will not cause emulsion problems for the
particular oil/spent acid system. Most emulsion problems begin to disappear when the solution pH
rises above 6.5. If emulsions are present in the backflow, they must be broken before the pH can be
neutralized.

Figure 21.12: pH vs. Acid Backflow on a 90 bbl Stimulation on Trinidad Poui B-16XX

Treatment Choices
Several methods can be used to eliminate the problems caused by backflowed acid. One workable
approach to emulsions on backflow (Little Buffalo Basin-Madison Lime) was to place a small chemical
injection pump just downstream of the wellhead to inject a mutual solvent such directly into the produced fluid. By the time the fluids traveled through the flow lines and reached the tank battery, the
emulsions were broken and the fluids could be easily separated. Field optimization showed treatment
could be discontinued after a pH of 6.5 to 6.8 without further treater upsets. Gidley achieved similar
performance by loading the acidizing treatment overflush with 5% mutual solvent.' Both these operations eliminated treater upsets. Coppel found that the diverting agents and precipitates from the spent
acids, especially after commingling production streams, were the cause of emulsion upsets2 He successfully treated the backflow with demulsifiers. An alternate method involves in-situ neutralization of
acid.3 This method may produce formation damage in some instances, however. The best method to
use will, as stated earlier, depend on well conditions and available e q ~ i p m e n t . ~
A-few
~ common items
are clear:
1. Add emulsion breaking andlor neutralizing material before pipelining the fluid. This uses the flow

action in the pipeline to mix the mutual solvent and prevents the emulsion from becoming more
stable due to energy input. Field tests are needed for selection of concentration and type of
mutual solvent. Typical ranges of 0.5% to 5% mutual solvents or 0.1 to 0.5% demulsifier surfactants are common, but tests are required.
2. Monitor the pH or a key ion and continue to treat until a predetermined level. A pH of 6.5 is suggested unless another level is established by field test.

21-13

3. Break out as much water as possible as early as possible to minimize the volume of the internal
phase of oil external emulsions. This will reduce the emulsion viscosity.

Oil Foams
Oil foams or froths following treating are common for a few wells that produce crude or where foam
producing chemicals or solvents such as diesel are used. Oil foams are usually unstable except where
a froth is created where oil viscosity is high.g Natural oil foaming tendency is caused by short-chain
(MW 5400) carboxylic acids and phenols in the crude.l0 The materials are usually in low concentration, often less than 0.02% of crude volume. Foams created by the action of treating fluids are usually
the result of diesel or other oils. Soaps, silt suspenders, or foamers in the acid or water usually have
little effect on oil foaming.
Preventing natural oil foams is difficult. Antifoam squeezes have been tried with poor results. Antifoam treatment of oil in the production facilities may be chemical with silicones and polyglycol
ethers,12 or mechanical, using treaters with high interval surface area contact (cellulose, fiber,
Foams break by spreading the film of the bubble until it becomes so weak that it will not
support i t ~ e 1 f . Liquids
l~
or solids such as demulsifiers or mutual solvents that promote spreading will
break the film. Silts and other small particles can stabilize foams and froths in the same way as solids
stabilize e m ~ l s i o n s . ~
Preventing oil foaming after acid or solvent treating usually focuses on elimination of the component
that is causing the foam problem. Diesel is the most common foam creator. Other foam producers
chemicals include emulsifiers although the problems caused are usually much less than diesel. Most
foams, whether following stimulation or natural production result from sudden pressure decrease and
turbulence (chokes, pumps, etc.).

References
1. Gidley, J. L. and Hanson, H. R.: Prevention of Central Terminal Upsets, Related to Stimulation
and Consolidation Treatments, SPE 4551, SPE 48th Annual Mtg., September 30-October 3,
1973.
2. Coppel, C. P.: Factors Causing Emulsion Upsets in Surface Facilities Following Acid Stimulation, J. Pet. Tech., (September 1975), pp. 1060-1066.
3. Green, E. B., Lybarger, J. H., and Richardson, E. A.: In-Situ Acid Neutralization Solves Facility
Upset Problems, J. Pet. Tech., October 1974, pp. 1153-1 155.
4. Gdanski, R. D. and Peavy, M. A.: Well Return Analysis Causes Re-evaluation of HCI Theories,

SPE 14825, Presented at the Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, February 2627, 1986.
5. Jacobs, I.: Asphaltene Precipitation During Acid Stimulation Treatments, SPE 14823, Formation Damage Symposium, Lafayette, February 26-27, 1986.
6. Smith, C. F., Crowe, C. W., and Nolan, T. J.: Secondary Deposition of Iron Compounds Following Acidizing Treatments, J. Pet. Tech., September 1969, pp. 1121-1126.
7. Gougler, P. D. Jr., Hendrick, J. E., and Coulter, A. W.: Field Investigation Identifies Source and
Magnitude of Iron Problems, SPE 13812, Presented at the 1985 Prod. Oper. Symposium, Oklahoma City, March 10-12, 1985.

21-14

8. King, G. E. and Trbovich, L. 0.: identification of Emulsions, Dispersions, Froths, Foams and
Adverse Wetting Conditions, F85-P-25.
9. Rooker, M.: Crude Oil Separator Foam Problems, S.W.P.S.C., Lubbock, 1983, pp. 400-406.
10. Callaghan, I. C., McKechnie, A. L., Ray, J. E., Wainwright, J. C.: Identification of Crude Oil Components Responsible for Foaming, S.P.E.J., April 1985, pp. 171-175.
11. Fallin, S., Sharp, S.P., Wolfe, J. L.: Defoaming Agents for increased Oil Production Rates of
Foamy Crudes-Laboratory Screening Tests and Field Results J. Pet. Tech., February 1971,
pp. 233-238.

12. Hudgins, C. M. Jr.: Chemical Treatments and Usage in Offshore Oil and Gas Production Systems, OTC 6528, presented at the 23rd Annual OTC in Houston, May 6-9, 1991.
13. Hancock, W. P., Hagen, D. A.: Fine Tuning Increases Statfjord B Output 39%, World Oil,
January 1986, pp. 79-84.
14. Laurence, L. L.: Foaming Crudes Require Special Separation Techniques, World Oil, November 1981, pp. 103-105.
15.

Ross, S.: Mechanics of Foam Stabilization and Antifoam Action, Chemical Engineering
Progress, Vol. 63, No. 9, September 1967, pp. 41-47.

21-15