Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Summary
Frac packing is a completion technique that merges two distinct
processeshydraulic fracturing and gravel packing. The main
challenge of a frac-pack completion is the successful creation of
high-conductivity fractures with the tip-screenout (TSO) technique and the placement of proppant within those fractures and in
the annulus between the screen and wellbore wall. This is further
compounded by having to do so in an ultra high-permeability
environment, in which high fluid-leakoff rates are evident.
From 1997 to 2006, job data from more than 600 frac-packing
operations, representing an estimated 5% of the worldwide total,
have been compiled into a database. This paper reviews well information and key frac-packing parameters. Also summarized are
engineering implementations and challenges, best practices, and
lessons learned. Essential frac-pack design parameters that were
attained from the step-rate test (SRT) and minifrac test are evaluated. These include bottomhole pressure, rock-closure time, and
fracturing-fluid efficiency. Downhole pressure and temperature
are also discussed because of their importance to the post-completion efficiency evaluation and fracturing-fluid-optimization phase.
Worldwide case histories are provided that demonstrate how
to both deploy different frac-packing systems and pack the wellbore during extreme conditions with improved packing efficiency
and a higher chance of success.
Introduction
Deepwater exploration and production has developed during the
last 2 decades. There is a broadening of the geographic regions for
deepwater completions (Fig. 1). The vast majority of deepwater
reserves are concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), west
Africa, Brazil, North Sea, and southeastern Asia. The potential to
achieve significantly higher sustainable production rates, well longevity, and cost reduction has been the primary driver for pursuing
most deepwater completions. There have been many different
types of completions in deep water, with frac packs and openhole
horizontal completions emerging as the two dominant types (Vitthal 2003). The type of application that was used has been found to
be area-dependent. In Brazil, the dominant completion type is
openhole horizontal gravel packing (OHHGP), which is shown in
Fig. 2a. In the GOM, 70% of completions are frac packs, which is
illustrated by Fig. 2b. In west Africa both openhole completions
and frac packs are used. In general, frac packing has resulted in improved flow efficiency and has exhibited lower failure rates than
other sand-control methods (Vitthal 2003; Norman 2004). McLarty
and DeBonis (1995), Tiner et al. (1996), and Ott and Woods (2003)
provide a good overview of the technology development for frac
packing and other sand-control methodologies.
Frac-packing treatments are often applied to formations in
which vertical permeability limits the application of horizontal
wells or wells with multiple target zones behind the casing. The
production zones often feature high permeability and, in turn,
high fluid-leakoff rates. In some cases, there may be two or more
highly permeable zones that are separated by a shale zone.
C 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Copyright V
This paper (SPE 147419) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and
Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, USA, 2021 June 2012, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 19 March 2012. Revised manuscript
received for review 31 October 2012. Paper peer approved 19 November 2012.
Europe
North America
Latin America
CHGP, 15.4%
OHHGP, 49.3%
HRWP, 1.7%
SAS, 2.8%
ESS, 1.0%
Frac-packing, 29.8%
(a)
Total job # = 444
HWRP,
19.6%
OHHGP,
8.6%
Frac-packing, 71.8%
(b)
Fig. 2(a) Percentage of various sand-control completions in
Campos basin; (b) percentage of various sand-control completions in GOM.
120
pipe and the gravel-pack packer assembly and below the sealbore
extension. It allows for the emergency retrieval of the gravel-pack
packer without pulling the screen assembly.
The crossover tool alternates the flow paths during gravelpacking operations. It allows fluids pumped down the work string
to cross over to the screen/casing annulus below the packer and
be squeezed to the formation. In circulation mode, the crossover
tool allows return fluid to flow up the washpipe from below the
gravel-pack packer and cross over to the work-string/casing
annulus above the gravel-pack packer.
Various downhole frac-packing assemblies have been developed that depend on the completion procedure. The following section briefly introduces several completion systems.
Single-Trip, Single-Zone Perforating/Frac-Packing System.
This system allows for a combined one-trip perforating and fracpacking operation that is aimed at minimizing completion time
and improving productivity. The perforating and frac-packing
tools are run in the hole in a single trip with guns positioned on
target depth. At post-detonation, the tool string is repositioned to
place the screens opposite the perforations, and remaining operations are carried out as they would be for a single-trip, single-zone
system.
Single-Trip, Multizone Frac-Packing System. This system provides the ability to frac pack multiple zones in a single trip with
complete zonal isolation before and after treatment. In addition,
it provides the ability to provide selective or commingled
production.
Each zone contains isolated gravel-pack screens with integral
production sliding sleeves, a frac-packing sleeve for placing proppant, and an isolation packer. The equipment for all zones is
assembled at the rig floor, and then a single gravel-pack service
tool is installed below the lowermost screened interval and connected through a concentric inner work string to the primary work
string above the top production packer. The entire assembly is
now run into the wellbore in a single trip. The service tool contains shifting tools that will selectively open or close the production sliding sleeves and frac-packing sleeves in each zone, thus
allowing selective zonal isolation, treatment, or production.
Computer Simulator for Frac Packing
Because of the complexity and challenges of frac packing, the
ability to successfully model the TSO fracture volume and geometric shape and to design a proppant schedule to achieve an
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
Squeeze
0
OHHGP Envelope
(Farias et al. 2007)
5000
10000
TVD, ft
15000
20000
25000
30000
GOM (Ogier et al. 2011)
Frac-pack from Campos Basin
35000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
TMD, ft
25000
30000
35000
The pack factor or packed-proppant mass per linear measurement depth is less than 100 lbm/ft measured depth (MD) for
OHHGP and HRWP methods. However, the average pack factor
in frac packing is approximately 640 lbm/ft MD in the GOM and
1,120 lbm/ft in the Campos basin (Fig. 13). This indicates that the
conductivity in frac-pack wells is higher than that in wells with an
OHHGP or HRWP completion.
Fig. 14 shows the skin factors for the three different sand-control methods. In the GOM, the average skin factor for frac packing
with underbalanced perforating is 0.44, whereas the same parameter has an average of 2.9 in wells with overbalanced perforating.
Because the skin factor is not a linear parameter, it is converted to
the flow efficiency with a simple correlation between the skin factor and the flow efficiency [efficiency 7/(7 skin)]. After the
skin factor is converted to the flow efficiency, the averaged flow
efficiency is then converted back to the skin factor. The average
GOM operation
Frac-packing
HRWP
25000
OHHGP
30000
Frac-packing
10,000 psi/in.0.5 (Fig. 10). For the majority of the wells, the fracture toughness is 1,200 psi/in.0.5. The typical fluid-leakoff coefficients range from 0.006 to 0.03 ft/min0.5 for sand and 0 to
0.004 ft/min0.5 for shale sand. However, the fluid-leakoff coefficients are varied (Fig. 11).
As Fig. 12 illustrates, pump rates for OHHGP and HRWP are
much lower than those for frac packing. Pump rates for such
applications are generally less than 10 bbl/min. In contrast, pump
rates for frac packs can reach as high as 40 bbl/min. In the GOM,
pump rates are between 15 and 40 bbl/min, with an average pump
rate of approximately 15 bbl/min. In the Campos basin, pump
rates are 10 to 40 bbl/min, with an average pump rate of approximately 25 bbl/min. The frac-packing application envelope is constantly being enlarged in terms of pump rate and proppant volume.
Today, pumping jobs at rates of 30 to 50 bbl/min with 100,000 to
300,000 lbm of proppant are common.
Campos Basin
operation
20000
15000
10000
5000
98
12
2
14
6
17
0
19
4
21
8
24
2
26
6
29
0
31
4
33
8
36
2
38
6
41
0
43
4
45
8
48
2
50
6
53
0
55
4
74
50
2
26
0
Job #
Fig. 5Vertical depth at the top of perforation for different sand-control completions.
122
Frac-packing
Frac-packing
90
HRWP
OHHGP
100
80
Campos Basin
operation
GOM operation
Deviation angle, o
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
9
19
3
21
7
24
1
26
5
28
9
31
3
33
7
36
1
38
5
40
9
43
3
45
7
48
1
50
5
52
9
55
3
16
14
12
73
97
49
25
0
Job #
Fig. 6Wellbore-deviation angle for various sand-control completions.
skin factors shown in Fig. 14 were calculated with the aforementioned method. This indicates that perforations conducted with
underbalanced conditions could improve well production. However, individually, some wells with underbalanced perforating are
still estimated to have skin factors that are higher than those in
wells with overbalanced perforating. More data are required to
show that underbalanced perforating is better than overbalanced
perforating in frac-pack operations for well productivity (Neumann et al. 2002; Pourciau et al. 2005). The average skin factor
for OHHGP is 6.4; for HRWP and frac packing, it is 2.8 and 0.74,
respectively. This indicates that frac packing has a higher completion efficiency than the other two methods, and that OHHGP has
the lowest completion efficiency among these cases. Similarly, in
the Campos casin, the averaged skin factors are 2.4, 2.1, and 24.1
for HRWP, frac packing, and OHHGP, respectively. As men-
1.4
Frac-packing
1.6
HRWP
OHHGP
1.8
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
24
1
26
5
28
9
31
3
33
7
36
1
38
5
40
9
43
3
21
7
9
19
3
16
5
14
12
1
97
73
49
25
0.0
Job #
Fig. 7Reservoir-pressure gradient for various sand-control completions in the GOM.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
123
16
OHHGP
14
HRWP
Frac-packing
Case size, in
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Job #
300
350
400
450
500
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
384
327
369
Job #
402
444
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
126
150
174
198
222
246
270 294
Job #
318
342
366
390
414
438
of the air with the completion liquid. To reduce the risks associated with this dynamic process, the completion fluid is now circulated into the casing annulus inlet and circulated out through the
casing annulus outlet while the TCP guns are deployed. The operator now uses this method as a standard procedure to avoid plugging the hollow-steel carrier. In addition, to mitigate formation
influx and potential well-control issues resulting from detonation
dynamics and resultant fluid displacements, the work string is
reciprocated immediately after the guns are fired. Also, conducting a dynamic two-phase-flow analysis is a standard procedure to
ensure that this dynamic underbalanced condition is manageable.
Managing debris and keeping the hole clean during all stages
of the frac-packing process are crucial to completing the well successfully and minimizing NPT. As discussed previously, the de-
bris could plug the hollow-steel carrier if the hole is not clean. In
addition, long TCP guns could generate considerable steel debris
after firing (Banman et al. 2008). Cleaning this debris with a dedicated tool is essential to ensure that subsequent operations are
trouble-free. A scraper tool combined with a downhole-debris
magnetic tool, which is shown in Fig. 16, could be used to clean
this type of debris. Sometimes, junk baskets are used to clean
large rock chips, blowout preventers (BOP) annular-bag rubber,
and metal chips. Debris could also cause the downhole service
tools and seals to malfunction, resulting in higher NPT. In one
frac-packing completion, damage to the service-tool collets was
observed, which led to unexpected downtime. Subsequent slickline operations revealed BOP annular-bag rubber debris, which
was left during the drilling stage. As a result, the annular bags are
0.35
For sand
0.3
GOM operation
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Job #
Fig. 11Fluid-leakoff coefficients for frac packing.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
125
40
Campos Basin
operation
GOM operation
35
Pump rate, BPM
Frac-packing
Frac-packing
45
HRWP
OHHGP
50
30
25
20
15
10
5
97
12
1
14
5
16
9
19
3
21
7
24
1
26
5
28
9
31
3
33
7
36
1
38
5
40
9
43
3
45
7
48
1
50
5
52
9
55
3
57
7
73
49
25
0
Job #
Fig. 12Pump rate for various sand-control completions.
Frac-packing
HRWP
6000
OHHGP
7000
GOM operation
Campos Basin
operation
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
97
12
1
14
5
16
9
19
3
21
7
24
1
26
5
28
9
31
3
33
7
36
1
38
5
40
9
43
3
45
7
48
1
50
5
52
9
55
3
57
7
49
73
1
25
0
Job #
Fig. 13Packed-proppant mass for various sand-control completions.
126
Campos Basin
Operation
GOM Operation
90
Underbalanced perforation
Frac-packing
80
HRWP
OHHGP
Overbalanced perforation
OHHGP
70
Averaged skin = 6.4
HRWP
Frac-packing
60
Averaged skin = 2.9 with
overbalanced perforation
Skin factor
50
40
Averaged skin = 0.44 with
underbalanced perforation
30
20
10
0
1
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
91
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
10
Well number
Fig. 14Skin factor with various perforation conditions.
(Data were compiled from Hannah et al. 1994; Petit et al. 1995; Stewart et al. 1995; Neumann et al. 2002; Ott and Woods 2003; and Pourciau
et al. 2005.)
of the wells is shown in Fig. 17. The detailed operation information is summarized by Joseph (2010).
It is very interesting to compare the challenges and lessons
learned between this case and Case Number 1, because both use a
similar system.
At the time, this project involved the largest amount of sand
pumped into a single zone with a single-trip, multizone system:
148,000 lbm of sand at a pump rate of 45 bbl/min. In addition, a
total of 260,000 lbm of 16/20 sand was pumped in the five zones
of Well 2.
Wellbore debris caused the frac sleeve to malfunction when
treating Zone 3 of Well 1. The same problem occurred when treating Zone 1 of Well 2. Both incidents resulted in extra remediation
Brush
140
120
Completion time
NPT
100
Magnet
80
60
40
Stablizer
20
0
1
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Well
Fig. 15Completion time and NPT analysis for select singletrip, multiple-zone completions in Indonesia.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
Bit
Depth
(mBRT)
Description
CIW - SSMC Tubing Hanger
4.1/2" Tubing
1825.59
9-5/8" Packer
1835.02
Isolation Packer
Zone 1
1888.37
Isolation Packer
Zone 2
2027.37
Isolation Packer
Isolation Packer
Zone 4
2125.46
Isolation Packer
Indexing Muleshoe
trips. The NPT exceeded 40% for both operations, caused by significant wellbore debris, frac-sleeve malfunction, and downhole
leaks. This is very similar to the NPT in Case Number 1 for the
first two wells operation caused by the learning-curve period.
After the learning-curve period, NPT could be reduced
significantly.
Case Studies 1 and 2 indicate that wellbore-debris cleaning,
leak diagnosis, and associated contingency planning are critical
aspects to the success of a single-trip, multizone operation.
Pressure and temperature downhole memory gauges were installed in the service tool for these two wells. Information
128
10170' Packer
10246' Screen
10284' Screen
10304' Isolation Packer
Temperature Log
(a)
(b)
Fig. 19Multilogs information before and after the calibration test for Campos basin operation. (a) Gamma ray and neutrondensity logs before the calibration test; (b) temperature logs after the calibration test.
case, the better permeability was read at the bottom of the interval, where more fluid was injected. However, because this
sequence added 60 hours to the normal procedure, it became a
special procedure, applied only when specific information about
the fracture-height propagation was necessary.
Best Practices From Field Cases for
the Frac-Packing Process
Although it is important to effectively prevent sand production, it
is equally important to do so in a way that does not hinder productivity. The feasibility and success of frac packing a well depend
on wellbore cleanup, completion fluids, completion tools and
equipment, proppant and screen selection, work-string design,
perforation, software/simulators, sand-control design/execution
and post-treatment evaluation, and field-personnel experience.
The best practices for frac packing are summarized in the following sections.
Completion Fluid
Mechanical plugging is the most common cause of formation-permeability damage. To minimize its effect, clean fluids
must be used during drilling-fluid displacement, perforating, wellbore cleaning, and frac-pack treatment.
Dedicated filtration equipment must be used to filter the completion fluids before pumping them into the wellbore.
Brine is a common completion fluid. Proper brine fluid must
be selected on the basis of its density for well control, compatibility with the formation rock matrix and other fluids, and the crystallization temperature for maximal storage and optimal operating
conditions.
Deepwater environments often present conditions for the formation of gas hydrates. Computer models can be used to evaluate
the hydrate-equilibrium conditions for a variety of completion
brines.
Surfactants are often added to completion fluids to minimize
potential formation-damage problems associated with water blocking, oil-wetting, clay control, fines migration, and emulsions. They
must not be used indiscriminately, however, because they can
cause additional damage as opposed to preventing it.
130
Fluid-loss control is critical to the installation of the tool system for frac packing post-perforating. Fluid loss should be minimized but not necessarily stopped. The common methods for
controlling fluid loss include reducing hydrostatic pressure and
spotting viscous polymer gels or acid-soluble graded solids particles. Some tool systems have mechanical isolation valves to
mechanically control fluid loss.
Polymer-based fluids (linear gel and crosslinked gel) are often used for the main frac-packing treatment. Their properties
could significantly affect fluid-loss control, pumping hydraulics,
proppant delivery, frac packing, and formation damage. The
crosslink time and stability time should be derived from the coolest calculated work-string temperature. However, the crosslink
break time should be tested at a temperature closer to the bottomhole static temperature after pumping has ceased (Malochee and
Comeaux 2003). The proper gel load should be selected on the basis of the downhole temperature because of the gel degradation at
high temperatures.
In some deepwater completions, multiple fluids are used, in
which case each fluid should be evaluated individually. The fluid
that is considered fit for purpose should undergo evaluation
(Javora et al. 2006) with the proper laboratory equipment and procedures for on-site maintenance and handling.
Work String
The work string is the hardware used to deploy packers and
downhole tools, and it is the conduit to circulate fluids during the
frac-packing process. Similar to drillpipe-design criteria, workstring design considers torque, drag, pipe stretch or buckling, and
casing wear caused by high metal-to-metal friction.
Hydraulic analysis (friction and pressure profile along wellbore) for pumping various fluids throughout all completion processesincluding cleanout, displacement, perforation, washout
and frac packingshould be conducted for deep wells. This helps
ensure that the maximal pump rate for a specific application can
be delivered without putting any added risk to the integrity of the
work string, surface equipment, and downhole tools.
In cases when dynamic or transient process conditions (pipe
moving, BHA switching from squeeze/circulation position to the
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
reverse position, and gas kicking) are involved, transient hydraulic analysis should be conducted with a capable software (Banman
et al. 2008).
An internal abrasion-resistant drillpipe coating maximizes
pump rates while eliminating internal buildup of pipe scale, pipe
failures, and the need for pickling pipe (Pourciau 2007).
Perforating
There is not enough evidence to indicate that there are different effects on the performance of frac-packed completions
between underbalanced and overbalanced conditions in both the
GOM and Campos basin (Neumann et al. 2002; Pourciau et al.
2005). However, in the GOM, the top 10 cased-hole producing
wells were perforated in an underbalanced condition with TCP
guns (Ott and Woods 2003). Overbalanced perforating has
become the standard perforating technique for frac-packing operations in the Campos basin (Neumann et al. 2002).
A good rule of thumb is that the screens should cover at least
10 ft above and below the perforated interval, to ensure coverage.
For a long perforation interval (more than 900 ft), the shrinkage of the blank pipe resulting from the thermal effect should be
considered, and additional isolation packers should be installed
(Rovina et al. 2000).
Downhole Assembly
Designing a reliable and robust downhole frac-packing assembly is very important for the whole operation. There are more
challenges for the downhole assembly when the multitreated
interval gets longer and deeper, and the demand for larger volumes of proppant and high pumping rates becomes evident.
Service-tool movement from squeeze/circulation position to
the reverse position can apply a large drawdown pressure on the
formation. This swabbing effect has serious implications on sand
placement and production from the target zones. The operation
procedures must be carefully planned and modified to eliminate
excessive tool reciprocation and to minimize the instantaneous
swabbing effect. At the same time, keeping the hole in a clean
condition is very important to ensure that the whole operation progresses smoothly and successfully.
The annular clearance between the inside diameter and the
section below crossover tool (Fig. 3) down to the screen should be
selected large enough (more than 0.75 to 1 in.) to minimize proppant bridging and to avoid premature sandout (Moreno et al. 2009).
It is important to maintain a balanced or overbalanced condition to avoid flowing unconsolidated sands before the placement
of proppant into the perforations.
Proppant and Screen
Proppants in a frac pack should provide an effective permeability contrast, maintain fracture conductivity without proppant
crushing, control sand influx and fines migration, and minimize
proppant embedment in soft rock formation.
In general, the proppant used in frac packing is larger than
that used for gravel packing. The proppant size should be selected
with the formation-sand size analysis, and it is usually a multiple
of the d50 formation-sand size (e.g., d50 7 or 8).
Completions in deeper wells, with high fracture-closure
stresses, must use manufactured ceramic poppants because of
their consistent spherical shape and higher strength. Ceramic
proppants, because of their consistent shape, will provide a better
fracture conductivity.
Wellbore-Debris Cleaning
With the field operations experiences, the greatest challenge
encountered in frac packing is downhole-debris management.
Historical data indicate that as much as 30% of NPT during
completions is a result of debris left in the wellbore (Hern 2010).
There are a few options to manage the risks related to downhole debris. Applying high-viscosity gel slugs with high-density
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
Surface Equipment
There are four basic types of equipment used for the fracpacking treatmentmixing and blending, pumping, proppant handling, and monitoring/control.
Skid-mounted equipment has become very popular and
somewhat of an industry standard because it provides higher
deployment versatility. All equipment should be customized to
meet a specific set of design parameters.
A dedicated, fit-for-purpose stimulation vessel and its crew
members are also critical to the success of the frac-packing operation. The vessel should have enough space to accommodate frac
equipment, mixing and blending equipment, storage proppant and
liquid equipment, and a pumping and control/monitoring room for
the operation.
Frac-Packing Design and Simulation
Achieving TSO is the key for successful frac packing in
high-permeability formations. TSO fracturing relies on a carefully
timed TSO to limit fracture growth and to allow for fracture inflation and packing.
The criteria for TSO in frac-pack design should include
designing to prespecified fracture length (25 to 50 ft) to optimize
near-wellbore conductivity; determining the pumping schedule in
131
The TSO is the key for a successful frac pack in high-permeability formations.
Using a frac-packing simulator, updated with real-time data,
and taking into account the parameters estimated from the calibration tests will help field engineers design, optimize, and execute the frac-packing process.
The minifrac test and SRT are essential applications, before
designing the main fracture treatment, because they assist in
estimating important parameters such as fracture-closure pressure and time, fracture leakoff, and fluid efficiency.
Real-time monitoring of the surface live annulus pressure,
pump rate, bottomhole pressure, and sand-injection concentration is crucial to understand the overall frac-packing process.
Real-time monitoring of bottomhole temperature could help
design fluid breakers more efficiently.
Cleaning the wellbore before frac packing and pumping highquality fluids are important to ensure completion success.
Models that analyze work-string torque and drag, frac packing,
perforation, proppant/screen and fluids selections, wireline
operations, fluid hydraulics, and debris cleanout are essential
for the whole process.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their appreciation to Baker
Hughes and Petrobras for the opportunity to present this paper.
We also wish to thank Baker Hughes field-operation crews for the
execution of these treatments. We also wish to thank colleagues
Nicholas Clem and Luly Stephens for their valuable input and the
time spent to edit the manuscript.
References
Banman, M., Delattre, E., Sofyan, M. et al. 2008. Single-Trip Multi- Zone
Gravel PackingField Case Study Within Total E&P Indonesie on
Handil, Bekapai, and Sisi Nubi Fields. Paper IPTC 12388 presented at
the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 35 December. http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/12388-MS.
Bruce, R. and Jacot, R. 2000. The Effect of Fluid Loss During Fracture
Calibration Tests on the Main Treatment. Paper SPE 65624 presented
at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, West Virginia,
1719 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/65624-MS.
Cipolla, C.L., Shucart, J.K., and Lafitte, J.R. 2005. Evolution of Frac-pack
Design, Modeling, and Execution in the Ceiba Field, Equatorial
Guinea. Paper SPE 95514 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 912 October. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/95514-MS.
Farias, R., Li, J., Vilela, A. et al. 2007. Openhole Horizontal Gravel Packing Offshore Brazil: Best Practices and Lessons Learned From 72
Operations. Paper SPE 107190 presented at the SPE Latin American
and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1518 April. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/107190-MS.
Gillespie, G., Angel, K., Cameron, J. et al. 2005. Troika Field: A Well
Failure, and Then a Successful Workover. Paper SPE 97291 presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, 912 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97291-MS.
Hale, C., Conrad, M., Bose, M. et al. 2004. Is Live Annulus Data Interpretation During Frac-Pack Operations Viable Information? Paper SPE
86461 presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1820 February.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/86461-MS.
Hannah, R.R., Park, E.I., Porter, D.A. et al. 1994. Combination Fracturing/Gravel-Packing Completion Technique on the Amberjack, Mississippi Canyon 109 Field. SPE Prod & Fac 9 (4): 262266. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/26562-PA.
Hern, G. 2010. Deepwater Wellbore Cleanup System. Paper SPE 137090
presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference,
Galveston, Texas, 56 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/137090-MS.
Holcomb, W.D., Landry, T.J., Comeaux, B.A. et al. 2002. New Technique
Restores Initial Fluid Efficiency Observed in Mini-Frac and Results in
Increased TSO Frac-Pack Success. Paper SPE 77775 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, 29 September2 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/77775-MS.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
Smith, J.E., Meyer, B.R., and Jacot, R.H. 2002. Fracture Pressure-Slope
Analysis for TSOs in High-Permeability Formations. SPE Prod & Fac
17 (2): 110121. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/78149-PA.
Stewart, B.R., Mullen, M.E., Ellis, R.C. et al. 1995. Economic Justification
for Fracturing Moderate to High-Permeability Formations in Sand
Control Environments. Paper SPE 30470 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 2225 October.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30470-MS.
Suryanada, S., Wahyudhi, F., Garcia, E. et al. 2010. Saving 70% Rig Completion Time on 13 Multizone Wells With Single-Trip Multizone
Completion System in Mahakam Delta Offshore Indonesia. Paper SPE
133409 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 1922 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
133409-MS.
Tiner, R.L., Ely, J.W., and Schraufnagel, R. 1996. Frac PacksState of
the Art. Paper SPE 36456 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 69 October. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/36456-MS.
Van Sickle, E., Womble, A., and McKown, M. 2006. Achieving Savings
in Time-Sensitive Completion Costs: Results from Single-Trip Multizone Frac-Packing Case Histories. Paper SPE 103184 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, 2427 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/103184-MS.
Vincent, M.C., Pearson, C.M., and Kullman, J. 1999. Non-Darcy and Multiphase Flow in Propped Fractures: Case Studies Illustrate the Dramatic Effect on Well Productivity. Paper SPE 54630 presented at the
SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 2627 May.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/54630-MS.
Vitthal, S. 2003. A Review of Deepwater CompletionsCase Histories
Selection and Emerging Technologies. Paper presented at the Deepwater Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1417 July.
134