Workover Best Practices - Petrom - Part 3

RO-EP-DA-PO-06-POL-001-02 OMV Petrom Exploration Production

Revision 1 2012 OMV Petrom Workover Best Practices

11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING

Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 11-1

11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING.................................................................................................... 11-3
11.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 11-3
11.2 Fracturing Stimulation Technology Overview .................................................................... 11-3
11.2.1 Selection of Candidate for HDF and Acid Frac in OMV Petrom SA ............................ 11-5
11.2.2 Data Preparation required for hydraulic and acid fracturing design ......................... 11-9
11.2.3 Hydraulic Fracturing (HDF) Key Technology Parameters ......................................... 11-12
11.2.4 Fracturing Fluids and Additives Selection ................................................................ 11-16
11.2.5 Propping Agent Selection ......................................................................................... 11-18
11.2.6 HDF Pre-Job Evaluation Practice in OMV Petrom .................................................... 11-20
11.2.7 Rate Changes During the Job and MiniFrac data interpretations ............................ 11-28
11.3 Fracturing Methods Technology Workflow ...................................................................... 11-30
11.3.1 Propped Fracture Operation Workflow ................................................................... 11-31
11.3.2 HDF Design Process .................................................................................................. 11-32
11.3.3 Model Selection of fracture propagation ................................................................. 11-33
11.3.4 Net Pressure History Matching and Design Correction ........................................... 11-38
11.3.5 Methodology of Acid Fracturing .............................................................................. 11-43
11.3.6 Workflow Design Procedure for Acid Frac ............................................................... 11-47
11.3.7 Planning, Execution and Real Time Control of Well Fracturing ............................... 11-53
11.4 Downhole Completion Well Schematic for Fracturing ..................................................... 11-60
11.5 Surface Equipment for Fracturing..................................................................................... 11-65
11.6 Fluids and Materials Used for Fracturing.......................................................................... 11-68
11.6.1 Fracturing Fluids used in OMV Petrom .................................................................... 11-68
11.6.2 Fracturing Fluid Additives......................................................................................... 11-71
11.6.3 Foams/Energized fluids ............................................................................................ 11-73
11.6.4 Proppants ................................................................................................................. 11-74
11.7 Quality and Safety Requirements for Fracturing .............................................................. 11-76
11.7.1 Quality Assurance and Control of Fracturing Operations ........................................ 11-76
11.7.2 Safety Considerations............................................................................................... 11-80
11.7.3 Personnel.................................................................................................................. 11-80
OMV Petrom Exploration Production RO-EP-DA-PO-06-POL-001-02
OMV Petrom Workover Best Practices Revision 1 2012
Appendix 11 - A Surface Equipment for Fracturing (Various service companies). .................... 11-81
Appendix 11 - B Commercial fracturing fluid systems ............................................................... 11-82
Appendix 11 - C Proppant Specifications and characteristics .................................................... 11-83
Appendix 11 - D Fracture Stimulation Checklist ......................................................................... 11-84
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 11-88
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 11-91
References .................................................................................................................................... 11-92
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING
No. Strongly Recommended

1. Linear gel is recommended to be in the wellbore and near-wellbore region for the Rate Step
Down Test (RSDT)
2. Always use properly selected biocide if water based fracturing fluid will be used for
operation.
3. To limit leakoff in high permeability formation during hydraulic fracturing process
crosslinked systems should be used.
Apply the Rate Step Down Test (RSDT) to accurately make the difference in friction pressure
between the perforations and near wellbore friction and to exactly define Fracture Entry
Friction (FEF). The magnitude of the FEF components has served as guidance to design
and/or modify the placement procedure and treatment schedule, in order to reduce
unplanned terminations (screenout) of propped hydraulic fracture treatments.
Each step of the flow rate reductions during RSDT should be about 10-20 seconds long what
4. should be enough for stabilization of the flow rate and pressure. It should be avoided to
pump a small volume ahead followed by long steps, or, pump first small volume and then a
following rates in short steps.
5. Considering downhole stress conditions, reservoir and fluid properties in order to get
properly propped fracture with good conductivity use proppant size 16/30 or 16/20 mesh.
During Rate Step Down Test once fluid has been pumped through the perforations, bring the
6.
rate up to the designed rate. Typically 3-4 abrupt drops in rate are sufficient (2.4, 1.8, 1.2
and 0.6 m3/min or in API units 15, 11.5, 7.5, 3.5 bbl/min.
Use Minifrac analysis to get data for estimation the following parameters:
• Fracture Closure Pressure and time (Pump-in/Shut-in test)
• Fracture Net Pressure (Pump-in/Shut-in test)
7. • Stress profile and fracture geometry using net pressure matching (Pump-in/Shut-in
test)
• Fluid loss characteristics (total leakoff coefficient Ct and fluid efficiency) with respect
to the formation, fracture geometry and fracture parameters (Pump-in/Shut-in test)
• Minimum in situ-stress or ISIP (Pump-in/Flow-back test)
Proppants should be checked for proper type and size, and meet API specifications ( API RP
8.
56 or API RP60). Sieve analyses from each container should be used to establish size and
fines content.
In some cases, usually in the final stage of acid fracturing treatment, acid should be
9. pumped below the fracturing gradient pressure (injection in matrix mode). The injection
rate should be decreased to achieve required/designed pumping pressure. The reason for
following this procedure is to increase the etching of the fracture face near the well bore,
thus, increasing the fracture conductivity.
To make decision which fracturing method should be applied considering advantages and
10. disadvantages of the conventional fracturing with creating propped fracture and acid
fracturing, the best practice workflow shown in Figure 11-39 should be used.
http://www.petrom.com 11-1

• During execution fracturing job
• Check the proper functioning of the pumps, blenders, monitoring equipment, etc.
11.
• Continuously check the quality of the fracturing fluid and the proppant.
• Take samples of the fracturing fluid and proppants at all stages of the treatment.
• Continuously observe the pressures, rate, density proppant concentration.
In case of a premature termination of the job, immediately inform the rig/installation
12
supervisors to take appropriate action (e.g. circulate out any proppant laden fluid). Make
sure all (local) HSE requirements are met at all times.
No. Not Recommended at All

To start fracturing job operation if the following excess equipment for backup is not
available:
• 10% excess tank and storage capacity.
1. • 50% backup on power.
• 20-50% backup on pumps, depending on the number of pumps. If only one pump
will be used for job execution, then one additional pump should be prepared as
backup.
• sufficient backup on blenders and instrumentation (up to 100%).
2. To continue operation without adjusting the program/design, if the observed pressures
deviate significantly from the predicted pressures.
3. To change the designed pumping schedule if supervisor of Service Company and OMV
Petrom expert advisor have not been agreed .
4.
To locate of the frac/production ports without using properly recorded well logs.
5. To use fracturing fluid which is not compatible with the formation rock and fluids at in-situ
temperature and pressure.
To continue acid fracturing treatment if injection pressure lowers below the fracture
6. extension pressure.
Note: The fracture treatment pressure can be maintained by either increasing pumping rate
and/or pumping fluid loss control.
11-2 http://www.petrom.com
11.1 Introduction
Fracturing is the process of injecting a fluid into a well to create tensile stresses in a formation
exposed to the fluid pressure, causing local stresses in the formation to exceed the tensile strength
of the rock. This creates a crack, or fracture, propagating into the formation from the wellbore as
fluid continues to be injected at a high rate.
In some formations, acids may be used as the fracture fluid to etch the face of the crack, whereas in
others, a proppant such as sand may be injected with the fluid so that upon cessation of pumping
and crack propagation, the crack remains a conductivity pathway for fluids to flow from the reservoir
into the wellbore. These two processes are referred to as acid fracturing and proppant fracturing.
Acid fracturing is applicable in both damaged and undamaged carbonate formations. The initiation
and propagation of the fracture should be done by properly selected fracturing fluid and then walls
of the fractures are etched with acid to create a conductive flow channel of formation closure. Acid
fracturing is a treatment in which the fracturing and etching fluids are acid.
When the tensile forces created by the hydraulic pressure of fluid against the rock of the wellbore
become great enough, they literally part the rock and start ruptures the fracture. This fracture is then
extended from the wellbore by continued pumping of the fracturing fluid. Usually, inert proppant
(sand, resin coated sand, intermediate strength proppant, high strength proppant) are proportioned
into the fracturing fluid and forced down the tubing or casing into the opened fracture. When the
treating pressure is released and the pressure of the surrounding rocks (called "fracture closing
pressure") starts to seal the fracture, the proppant holds it open. This permits reservoir fluid to flow
along the high conductivity fracture to the wellbore. The fracture conductivity in particular provides
the important permeability contrast into that of the reservoir. The larger the ratio of the fracture
conductivity (fracture permeability-width product) to that of the virgin reservoir (taking into account
the geometry of the generated fracture), the higher the productivity increase.
11.2 Fracturing Stimulation Technology Overview
Fracturing is successfully applied in low to moderate permeability reservoirs, whereby the

productivity is improved from effectively increasing the wellbore radius. It can be applied in almost
any formation, although commonly in carbonate reservoirs acid fracturing is applied.
The principal reasons for fracturing a well:
• Bypass near-wellbore damage (skin),
• Extend a high conductivity flow path into the reservoir,
• Alter the fluid flow pattern in the reservoir,
• Increase the rate or productivity and/or to improve the ultimate recovery, and
• Aid in secondary recovery operations and to assist in the injection or disposal of waste water.
If a well has a large skin effect, then a relatively small fracture may increase productivity as much as a
few hundred percent. Fracturing is also attractive in very tight sands where the production rates may
be normally too low to permit economic drainage of the formation hydrocarbon. In these cases long,
conductive fractures may help to increase the ultimate recovery of hydrocarbon by extending the
time before the economic limit of a well is reached.
A neat fluid (“pad”) is pumped to initiate a two-wing fracture and establish fracture propagation. This
is followed by a viscous fluid mixed with propping agent (“slurry”), further extending the fracture.
The fluid breaks down to a low viscosity, and flows back out of the well. Propping agent prevents the
fracture from closing after the treatment. A highly conductive flow path is thus created. A propped
fracture can be from tens to several hundred meters long, and it usually has a width of some 5-35
mm. Depending on the formation permeability and the presence of damage, the productivity
improvement may be tenfold or more.
Hydraulic Fracturing alters the flow pattern around the well by creating a pathway (fracture), which
has higher permeability than the formation. Early in the well life, linear or bilinear flow could occur as
gas flows from the formation to the fracture (Figure 11-1). Later in the well’s life, pseudo-radial flow
occurs.
Figure 11-1 Fracturing Alter Flow Patterns
Finite conductivity in the fracture or the reservoir is limited to the extent that pressure drop in the
fracture occurs. Infinite conductivity means that the conductivity is very large, so, extremely small
pressure drop occurs in the fracture.
An effective wellbore radius, rw’, can be estimated from skin factor or fracture half-length such that
stimulated well production behavior can be approximated with radial flow by using rw in place of rw’.
With acid fracturing, no uniform acid etching or differential etching, of the fracture face creates
lasting conductivity. Unfortunately, despite rapid technology development, still there is no reliable
and accurate prediction of an acid fracturing outcome. Acid fracturing lacks the higher degree of
predictability associated with HDF with nonreactive fluids. There are several factors suggest the use
of acid fracturing:
• A predominantly naturally fractured carbonate formation, potentially leading to propped-
fracture complications.
• A heterogeneous formation, with porosity and permeable streaks that are conductive to a
higher degree of differential acid etching of the fracture walls.
• Good formation permeability, but with existing formation damage.
• A well that will not mechanically accept proppant.
Acid fracturing is the more conservative treatment design because proppant is not pumped. The risk
of failing to complete the treatment is also much lower. There is no risk of premature screen-out,
which can leave the fracturing tubing string full of proppant. Also, there is no risk of proppant
flowback, with all its troubles consequences. Acid fracturing is usually less expensive than propped
fracturing especially in deeper wells which are often dismissed from consideration because of
anticipation that closure pressure will overcome acid-etched fracture conductivity. If effective etched
fracture can be created, flow turbulence in the fracture is expected to be less in an open acid fracture
than in a fracture that contains proppant. A disadvantage of acid fracturing is that controlling the
leak-off rate of reactive acid in a fracture is very difficult. Without benefit of field experience in a
particular formation, prediction of etched conductivity and fracture length with a high degree of
confidence is not possible. This is due to unknown leak-off characteristics. Acid fracturing must be
used only where good differential etching is probable. The rock strength and closure pressure must
indicate that good conductivity will remain after fracture closure. Formation mechanical properties
and their response to contact different acid types and systems must always be evaluated as best as
possible in advance of a treatment program.
11.2.1 Selection of Candidate for HDF and Acid Frac in OMV Petrom SA
Well candidate selection for fracturing is a process of identifying wells with low productivity
compared to what they are capable of producing, and then examining these wells for mechanical
problems.
As integral part of the well selection process, the minimum analysis requirement should include
evaluation of the designed performance improvement as it is shown on Figure 11-2.
Post frac production is the best indicator of performance improvement. Post frac analysis provides
data about the fracture size and configuration (length, width and height, and vertical position) which
can be used to match the fracture size to the actual performance improvement.
If the actual performance gap after fracturing job is equal to predicted, then used model and applied
technique of job execution were according to the bottomhole conditions. If the actual performance
gap is less than predicted, then either the data used for the design were wrong or the treatment was
not placed optimally (TSO mode and in the zone of interest). If the actual Performance gap is more
than predicted, the data used for the design were wrong but the treatment was placed optimally.
Results of matching procedure for any case should be used for as lessons learned for the better
designing and execution of the next fracturing job.
The critical step in a process of candidate selection is data preparation and data quality check before
and or planning and execution.
The need for a fracturing treatment must be determined prior to getting too involved. The factors
involved in the decision must include, but should not be limited to, the cost of the treatment vs.
incremental productivity and feasibility.
Figure 11-2 Performance gap evaluation
The most important information and data should be collected during the process of the best
candidate selection are:
• Wellbore inclination survey,
• Wellbore configuration,
• Casing Integrity,
• Completion configuration,
• Perforation configuration,
• Surface equipment,
• Well Logs,
• Cement bond evaluation,
• Production data analysis,
• Near-wellbore damage: Skin,
• Pressure Build-Up (PBU) Well Tests,
• Previous fracturing treatment data, and
• Other operations: Water and/or Gas injection.
The implications of fracturing well candidate selection are critical and if a data are not properly
gathered, analysed and checked, a risk is high and chances to have unsuccessful operations are
increasing.
1. OMV Petrom Best Practice Candidate Selection
• Well candidates are usually selected by Asset and they are send for evaluation.
• Stimulation and Fracturing team is making candidate evaluation in six steps as follows:
 Step 1 - Make PVT matching,
 Step 2 - Identify an approximate saturation status and remaining reserve,
 Step 3 - Identify an approximate damage from history data (skin from steady state
flow equation - using Resestim 7 in house made software or Prosper),
 Step 4 - Predict IP increase after stimulation job based on IP increase after fracturing,
 Step 5 - Make production forecast based on material balance, and

 Step 6 - Estimate operation cost and calculates Cash Flow based on production
forecast.
• If candidate is feasible economically than it is selected.
The general workflow for candidate selection is shown in Figure 11-3. The final step of the process of
manual candidate selection involves gathering and organizing well data in order to estimate potential
of each individual zone and plan operation according to results of this analysis, as shown in
Figure 11-4.
Figure 11-3 Candidate selection workflow

Figure 11-4 Individual Zone/Well Evaluation for fracturing
11.2.2 Data Preparation required for hydraulic and acid fracturing design
Wellbore Configuration
A large number of variables, which are of extreme importance to job design and execution can
generally be supplied or obtained from the well file. Included in this list are:
Tubular configuration - Is the job pumped through tubing or casing? (additional data required about
tubular size, weight and grade, packer depth).
Perforations - In existing completions, the perforations are already in place, and an analysis should
indicate whether these can be used for the planned fracture treatment, or whether remedial actions
are needed (re-perforation, recompletion, cement squeezes, etc.). For newly completed wells,
perforation planning for fracture stimulation treatments, should be taken into consideration already
in the completion design. If more information is known about how the well was perforated, various
analytical model or software like SPAN can be run to determine the actual geometry of the
perforations (See Chapter 6).
Hole Survey - This is used only for proper frictional and hydrostatics calculations in 3D models
(FracCADE).
Cement Bond Log (CBL) - A cased hole bond log can be used to verify zonal isolation. A weak bond
could allow unrestrained height growth behind casing.
Formation Properties
Reservoir and rock parameters are required to arrive at a properly calculated design.
Permeability (K) - Formation K is a measure of the ease with which a formation permits a fluid to flow
through it. While the global term, K, is entered into fracturing design models; it should be noted that
effective permeability to oil and water are always lower.
Permeability can be estimated using various methods (empirically, derived from porosity and
irreducible water saturation- Swi read from logs, using well tests including pressure build-
up/drawdowns, short flow tests and drill stem tests, Repeat Formation Test –RFT etc., core testing
and analytical procedure/software, like PROSPER, can be used to obtain a well test match from a
pressure build-up or drawdown).
Porosity (φ) – Formation (φ) is a measure of the ratio of void space in a rock, compared to bulk
volume of the rock. The most frequent tools used for porosity estimation are:
• Sonic log, density log, or a neutron log can be used provided the formation lithology is
known. The depth of investigation for these logs is very shallow, on the order of inches.
• Core testing can again be used depending on the sampling method.
• Resistivity logs are another tool to be used.
Formation Stress (σ) A hydraulic fracture will orient itself in a plane normal to the direction of least
compressional stress. This stress is the closure stress (σcl) used in fracturing design. Dynamic
measurements can be obtained from shear velocities on a sonic log. This data in conjunction with a
bulk density can be used to calculate in-situ stress. The most frequently used test to estimate closure
stress in OMV Petrom is so called MiniFrac (sometimes called data - or calibration frac, or fracture
efficiency). If formation core sample are available, then static laboratory measurements on core can
be used to get closure stress.
Fracture Gradient (FG) - Obtained by dividing the closure stress by the well True Vertical Depth (TVD).
Also, FG can also be estimated with the in-situ correlation in different software (like ProCad,
FracCADE).
Reservoir Pressure (Pr) - The current pressure of the zone of interest is important in estimating the
well performance, production rate and payout of the well.
Reservoir Temperature (BHST) - Fluid selection and design primarily needs BHST as a design
parameter.
Skin (S) - Skin is the pressure drop across the near wellbore matrix. It will have a positive value for
damaged zones (up to 20), and negative values for stimulated zones (down to - 7). Skin estimated
after fracturing job is direct measure how much the executed operation was successful or not.
Oil, Water and Gas Saturation (So, Sw and Sg) - Determining oil, water and gas saturation is one of the
basic objectives for proper design fracture job.
Gas/Oil Ratio (GOR) - Measured/test production data and history of oil and gas production are the
most reliable sources for GOR.
Lithology – Various logs could be used to define the material makeup of the rock, to indicate
boundaries, correlate zones and give an indication of lithology, particularly, to define shale beds.
Zonal production contribution should be evaluated using PLT measurement.
Fluid Properties
The selection of the actual composition of fracturing fluid, in principle, depends on a number of
aspects, such as reservoir mineralogy, well completion, operational considerations, compatibility
with reservoir fluids and environmental concerns.
Rheology (n’, k’). It is important to consider fluid rheology as a function of time and temperature.
Double check rheology tables and make sure that included information extends to temperatures
greater than the BHST of the well. If the fluid temperature exceeds the last defined point, it can
default to the rheology of the last defined point, which is generally water. The actual n’ and k’
numbers can be obtained from published information (Fracturing Fluids Manual) or from the lab
testing of the individual fluid.
Because there is little information on the rheology of foamed or energized fluids, these should be
calculated from the developed foam rheology spreadsheet as shown in Appendix 11.
Wall Building Leak-off Coefficient (Cw) - Cw is a function of polymer and Fluid Loss Additive (FLA)
concentration, as well as formation permeability. For non-wall building fluids, Cw should be set to a
large number.
Total Leak-off Coefficient (Ct) - This is basically the minimum of Cw and Cvc (filtrate and reservoir
compressibility controlled leak-off). Cvc is automatically calculated by the program. The only control
over this parameter on the fluid screen is the leak-off viscosity and it is a function of temperature.
For fluids with essentially water leaking off (wall building fluids) the viscosity starts at 1 cp, and
decreases with increasing temperature. If the leak-off viscosity is greater than 5 to10 cp, it will begin
to become a leak-off control factor. The other important factors are reservoir fluid factors and
reservoir properties (permeability, porosity, compressibility, and viscosity). For known formations, an
excellent source of Ct is from previous evaluations. When performing a pressure match analysis,
leak-off is generally adjusted with only Ct and spurt. If this information is cataloged in the user
database, a value of Ct from the database can be very accurate. Total leak-off coefficient is very
important for TSO design in high permeable formation requesting sand control.
Spurt - For wall building fluids, the spurt is the leak-off that occurs before the deposition of the filter
cake. Obviously, this occurs at a faster rate than after the filter cake is in place. It can be visualized as
shown in Figure 11-5.
Figure 11-5 Spurt valuation
Fluid Friction -This is also easily obtained from published information. The most reliable results,
however, can be obtained from short field tests (ISIPs in pad). When doing post-job analysis, this
information can be very important. If these ISIPs are done on several jobs, at different rates, they can
be compiled to generate personal friction curves for the exact fluids which are regularly pumped.
When using this method, care must be taken to eliminate “extra pressures” (perforation,
tortuosity…) from the database. If these pressures are quantified during the evaluation process, the
fluid data is still valid.
N2/CO2 Quality - The foam quality (% by volume of gas, excluding proppant) from the fluid design. A
decision needs to be made prior to the job, whether constant downhole or surface rate is going to be
used.
Retained Factor - This is the fraction of the proppant pack permeability that remains after the fluid
damage has occurred. The only place to obtain this is from published breaker curves. This number is
of great importance when calculating the fracture conductivity. If no breaker is used in a polymer
based wall building fluid, which leaves a great deal of residual mass in the fracture, this number can
easily approach 0.15, making the default value of 1.00 very inaccurate. Typical values range from (0.5
to 0.75).
Additives - These will generally be determined from the frac fluid selection. A previous experience in
a field can be an important indicator of needed additives. Clay control, iron control, surfactants, non-
emulsifiers, etc. are indicated by formation type and previous experience in a particular formation.
Other additives such as temperature stabilizers and breakers are determined from the requirements
for fluid rheology against time. Additives should be kept to an absolute minimum (apart from some
essential additives, like buffers, breakers), and their inclusion should be clearly
demonstrated/justified.
Proppant
A propping agent should be selected that can provide sufficient fracture conductivity under the
expected fracture closure stress.
The optimum fracture conductivity and thus the appropriate proppant can be estimated using the
dimensionless fracture conductivity:
CfD = Kfwf/Kxf, where:
• Kf- propped fracture permeability (mD),

• wf – fracture width (mm, inch),
• K – reservoir permeability (mD), and
• xf – fracture half length (m, feet).
The optimum CfD can range from less than 1.6 to 30 depending on the design limitations and
reservoir characteristics. It has been proposed that, when the proppant volume is fixed, the optimum
CfD is 1.6 and for gas condensate reservoirs the optimum CfD could be less than 1.6.
Values for permeability and retained factor are excluding any fluid effects. The database proppants
should generally maintain the retained factor of 1.00, as the permeability is already adjusted based
on the closure stress.
11.2.3 Hydraulic Fracturing (HDF) Key Technology Parameters
Fracture design considerations included fracture length, fracture conductivity, and interval coverage
(staging). An extensive reservoir simulation study are required to determine the optimum fracture
half-length and conductivity and predict the future well behavior and production rate.
Fracturing pressures
In many applications of hydraulic fracturing it is essential to ascertain, if at all possible, the

orientation of the fracture. The first question to be answered regards whether or not the fracture is
vertical or horizontal. Generally, horizontal fractures are preferred, but in deeper formations they
are, as will be evident, most often vertical. One of the important measurements that can help
distinguish between horizontal and vertical fractures is the bottomhole pressure measured during
fracture treatment. The overburden stress is normally 22.3-24.6 kPa/m (0.99-1.08 psi/ft). If the
fracture gradient is less than this, it will be easier to part the earth (formation) than to lift it. In
hydraulic fracturing, enough pressure must be applied to initially break down or fracture the
formation and enough pressure must continue to be imposed to allow the fracture to continue to
grow or propagate. Normally, more pressure is required to initially breakdown a formation than is
required to propagate a fracture. Once a fracture is formed, the fluid in the fracture acts as a wedge,
forcing the fracture to grow. A fracture is more easily created using a low viscosity, penetrating fluid
than with a high viscosity nonpenetrating fluid. A penetrating fluid pressurizes a larger area, and the
total force on the formation is greater than if a nonpenetrating fluid, which acts only on the area
near the wellbore, is used. Pressure behavior during a fracturing treatment is illustrated by
Figure 11-6.
The fluid injection rate is constant, except that at some time injection is stopped to obtain the
instantaneous shut in pressure. The bottomhole pressure is shown versus time from the initial
injection of fluid until the treatment has been completed. The surface pressure is, of course, different
from the bottomhole pressure because of the weight of the fluid and the friction losses in the
wellbore. The critical portions of the pressure history during fracturing shown in Figure 11-6 are:
• Breakdown Pressure
The pressure required to break down the formation and initiate fracture. This pressure is
abnormally high due to the concentration of stresses around the wellbore at the time of
drilling. Sometimes this pressure is used incorrectly to calculate formation fracture gradient.
• Fracture Extension (Propagation) Pressure
The pressure required to continually enlarge the fracture;
• Instantaneous Shut in Pressure(ISIP)
The pressure response at the moment pumping stops, when the extension pressure has an
instantaneous drop, which is a measure of the total friction pressure;
• Fracture Closure Pressure
The pressure recorded at time the fracture closes. The fracture closure pressure is equal to
the minimum effective stress and is the pressure that should be used to calculate the true
formation fracture gradient.
• Net Fracture Pressure
The pressure which is differential between instantaneous pressure and fracture closure
pressure.
The instantaneous shut in pressure measured by stopping the flow will depend on the width of the
fracture at this point and the pore pressure surrounding the fracture. If large quantities of fluid have
been injected and the fracture width at the wellbore is large, then a larger shut in pressure will be
observed. If it is desired to measure the intrinsic tectonic stress, the shut in pressure should be
measured after only a small amount of low viscosity fluid has been injected to create a fracture. At
this stage the fracture width will be narrow and will have little effect. Even if larger quantities of fluid
are injected, the effect of fracture width is normally less than 30 bars. After shut in, stresses in the
earth squeeze the fluid in the fracture until the fracture walls close on the proppant or on the etched
walls of an acid fracture. When the walls close, and support the earth's stresses, the pressure will
decrease rapidly as more fluid leaks off into the formation.
The described pressure behavior is highly idealistic. Seldom all the described pressures will be
observed during a fracture treatment. For example, if the reservoir had been previously fractured,
there may not be any difference between breakdown pressure and fracture propagation pressure. If
the reservoir pressure is very low, the well will go on vacuum when the fracture closes, and a static
reservoir pressure will not be measured at the surface. If Pisip is the instantaneous shut in pressure
measured at the surface, then the bottomhole shut in pressure (Pbisip) is given by:
𝑃𝑏𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑝 = 𝑃𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑝 + 𝜌𝑓𝑙 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ 𝐻𝑚𝑝 (11-1)
Where:
Hmp is the formation depth (to the middle of the perforated interval). This equation is precise
because when flow is stopped, the friction pressure vanishes.
Fracture Gradient (FG) can be calculated using Pbisip as follows:
𝐹𝐺 = 𝑃𝑏𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑝 ⁄𝐻 (11-2)
𝑚𝑝
Figure 11-6 Idealized bottomhole pressure during fracturing job
Fracture Geometry
Available computer programs for fracture modeling allows the user perform sensitivity studies with a
design limit on either length or volume. Varying the fluid pumped, height growth, leak-off, modulus,
pump rate, spurt loss, and formation toughness yields comparisons and sensitivities of the input
values. If good data is available for some of those parameters, it is not required to sensitize on them.
Sensitizing should only be used for data that is questionable, or is a limiting factor in the design; such
as pump rate. This module can also be used in the post-job evaluation for a quick check of the
fracture geometry. If delta Pnet is known, the geometry can quickly be analyzed.
To use 3-D fracture models, vertical reservoir and rock mechanical properties must be developed.
Assigning properties to layers is the critical step in the process of developing 3-D fracture model data
sets. If these properties are properly measured and estimated, the data set will be both useful and
accurate. The profiles in Figure 11-7 and Figure 11-8 are examples of this process.
Zone information and changes in lithology should be taken from available well log data (Gamma Ray
log). Rock types can be picked from software that roughly describes formation characteristics. This
will assign default values for Poisson’s ratio, Young’s modulus, and Fracture Toughness. Assign pore
pressures to each zone based on reservoir pressure gradient for pay zone. If the well has been
producing the current pore pressure should be used in the pay zone and original pressure to create
the gradient. Use Minimum Insitu-Stress Correlations to calculate stresses.
Figure 11-7 Well lithology, permeability/thickness product and cumulative hydrocarbon in place
Figure 11-8 Well lithology and mechanical properties distribution
11.2.4 Fracturing Fluids and Additives Selection
The purpose of fracturing fluids is basically:

• To transmit the pressure from the surface to the bottom of a well, to initiate a fracture,
• To hydraulically extend (or propagate) the fracture into the formation,
• To transport and distribute the proppant along the fracture, and
• In acid fracturing, to create unevenly etched flow channels.
The fluids selected for a fracturing treatment can have a significant influence on the resulting
propped fracture length and fracture conductivity. Fluids that leak-off rapidly into the formation will
not extend the fracture to the desired length, and may result in a premature screen-out. Moreover, if
a significant amount of residue of the gelled fracturing fluid remains either in the proppant pack,
and/or as a filter cake at the fracture face, the fracture conductivity and production performance of
the fracture may be considerably less than the design value.
When choosing a fluid, it is important to take into consideration the well bottomhole static
temperature and formation properties. Some conditions to consider are: water sensitivity, low
reservoir pressure, extra viscosity required, high proppant pack conductivity, short length (< 90 m
/300 feet), and low conductivity. These should not be the only factors used in making a decision. The
fluid selection chart in Figure 11-9 is a good gauge of where to start. Choose a fluid which will give
large conductivity and the lowest polymer damage. Optimize according to the leak-off coefficient
(Cw, Ct), retained factor, whether or not flowback is in the design, good clean-up, Bottomhole Static
Pressure (BHSP), Bottomhole Pressure (BHP), formation sensitivity, friction data, and formation
permeability (K).
Extensive laboratory rheology (Fann-50) and retained conductivity tests should be performed on a
variety of fluid systems, including both borate and zirconium crosslinked fluids, to identify the
optimum fluid for the treatments. Reservoir brine, freshwater and seawater base fluid systems also
can be considered. Seawater has the advantage of minimizing logistical issues and is less expensive
particularly in offshore hydraulic fracturing operations and this is usual case in OMV Petrom.
Sometimes, depending of the seawater composition the lower viscosity can be obtained in
combination with polymer and, in that case higher polymer concentration is required, particularly for
the wells with higher temperature (> 150 °C). In addition, at such conditions (high temperature) there
is possibility of scales precipitations.
Actual fracturing fluids will always leave some residue in the proppant pack in the form of polymer
residue, unbroken gel particles, fluid-loss material, filter cake etc., thus reducing the conductivity of
the propped fracture. The problem is most pronounced when the volume of residue from the
polymer is high, when polymer concentration is high, when the concentration of proppant in the
closed fracture is low and when the stress on the fracture is high, causing lower porosity. In
laboratory testing of several fluids, the reduction in fracture flow capacity was found to be greatest
for crosslinked HPG fluids and least for emulsion fluids, as shown below in Table 11-1. The damage
percentages are dependent on temperature, and the numbers in Table 11-1 were determined at
around 60°C. Since higher proppant concentrations increase proppant volume, while simultaneously
reducing the fluid volume, fluid residue plugging is mitigated by higher proppant concentrations.
Figure 11-9 Fracturing Fluid Selection Workflow
Table 11-1 Proppant pack damage from fracturing fluids
11.2.5 Propping Agent Selection
Propping Agents are required to “Prop Open” a created fracture and to increase flow capacity.
Choosing a proppant depends on closure pressure (Pc), mesh size, mean diameter (Dpmin),
preferences, cost, availability, compatibility, pack porosity and permeability. Optimizing
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity (Fcd) is a must.
The increase of oil/gas production after hydraulic fracturing can be achieved only if the fracture is
adequately filled with proppant and has a designed conductivity which is strongly influenced by the
following proppant properties:
• High Strength,
• Size, sphericity and roundness,
• Corrosion Resistant,
• Low Specific Gravity,
The most frequent proppant types used for fracturing operation are:
• Quartz Sand,
• Sintered Bauxite,
• Ceramic Material, and
• Resin Coated Sand, Bauxite or Ceramics.
Fracture permeability is a function of proppant type, proppant concentration, reservoir temperature,

fracture closure stress and the amount of fines, gel residue, etc. that are in the proppant pack. The
key criteria for selecting the proper proppant size is to get high conductive fracture. The best results
in OMV Petrom have been obtained with proppant size 16/30 or 16/20 mesh. The recommended
proppant selection workflow is shown in Figure 11-10.
Figure 11-10 Proppant selection workflow
11.2.6 HDF Pre-Job Evaluation Practice in OMV Petrom
Design for proper fracturing operation evaluation

The key to successful evaluation requires proper treatment planning and execution. The ability to
complete an accurate evaluation depends on the quality and quantity of data. In addition, requiring
rigorous treatment practices on every treatment ensures that the proper data is gathered regardless
of whether or not an evaluation is performed on location. There are the different tools available on
location to aid in the analysis process. These pumping practices, used in conjunction fracturing
software modeling, provide valuable pieces of information regarding the formation. These tools are
Step Rate Test (SRT), Rate Step Down Test (RSDT) and Mini Frac test. Not only can a successful and
correct pressure match be obtained using these tools, but the success of the treatment can also be
maximized with effective “on location” evaluation. In some cases, if it is needed, after perforating
and before fracturing, acid breakdown can be performed to ensure that injection is established and
that the perforations are open. Particularly, acid breakdown of perforation can be effective in
carbonate formation and sometimes is used as proved best practice in OMV Petrom. Standard
practices usually involve establishing an injection rate before any acid are pumped. Also, this could
be a good opportunity to perform a quick Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure (ISIP). After the initial
break, increase the rate to 5+ BPM, and after the pressure has stabilized, shutdown and calculate the
formation fracture gradient and a rough estimate of closure. If at all possible, an ASCII data file with
time, rate and pressure should be generated. Regardless of which company pumped the breakdown,
the operator should always have this information. The breakdown is also an ideal time to perform a
flow back test. After the balls have been wiped or surged, start the step-rate/flow-back test. This
technique will be discussed in the next section.
Step Rate Test
Exact rates are not important when performing a step rate test, constant rates are. This test is usually
done with workover fluid such as 2% KCl, brine or slickwater, however gelled fluid can also be used. It
is desirable to have a uniform weight fluid in the hole, so that hydrostatic pressure is known. In high
permeability areas crosslinked systems may be used to limit leak-off. This test is recommended as
the first for determining Fracture Extension Pressure (FPE). The step rate ensures that anomalous
pressures are not encountered during the closure test. Performing a valid step rate test ensures that
the zone has been fractured, provides an upper bound of closure and defines the required rate for
fracture extension. For purposes of defining closure, the duration of the individual steps should be
equal. The time span does not have to be long. One or half minute is sufficient to change rates and
level of pressure. Depending on the formation permeability the rate at which the fracture propagates
is usually greater than 500 lit/min (3 bpm), but in tight rock the rate is generally much smaller. The
recommended rates are 80, 120, 160, 320, 480, 640, 960, 1280, 1600 lit/min (0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8,
10 bpm). The rate should be adjusted depend on injectivity characteristics of formation. Such a wide
range of rates typically ensures that at least three rates fall above and below the fracture extension
pressure as shown in Figure 11-11. The best the time at each step should be the same length. The
last rate should be held for 5 to 10 min to ensure enough fluid to perform an adequate flow back.
The break point of the step-rate test in the curve or change in slope is the Fracture Extension
Pressure (FEP), which is larger than the closure pressure because of fluid friction in the fracture and a
finite resistance to extension. Intersection between straight line, drawn by regression between
points of curve before slope change, and Y axis gives as an approximate value of reservoir pressure
(Pr). Intersection between straight line, drawn by regression between points of curve after slope
change, and Y axis gives as an approximate value of Fracture Closure Pressure (FCP).
Figure 11-11 Step Rate Test
Once an adequate amount of data has been collected, the data can then be interpreted by standard
pressure transient analysis for the permeability and skin factor.
Rate Step Down Test
The rate step down test is highly valuable in determining near wellbore pressure effects such as
tortuosity or perforation friction. Load the hole with a known fluid (i.e., 2% KCl, slikwater, preferable
linear gel with low gelling agent concentration). Linear gel is recommended to be in the wellbore and
near-wellbore region for the RSDT, because, the viscosity is not affected as much by the shearing
rate. There are cases where a fracture cannot be initiated; because of the low efficiency of linear
fluids (linear gels), and only short superficial fractures can be created. In such cases, the fracture
entry geometry is very different, so, crosslinked gel provides the necessary efficiency, thus, using
crosslinked gel is recommended instead of linear gel.
In cases where downhole pressure is not available, it is recommended to overdisplace with linear gel
prior to starting the RSDT. Only after linear gel has passed the perforation near-wellbore area the
RSDT can be started.
Friction numbers are extremely important in the analysis, so it is imperative that it is known what is
in the hole and nearwellbore in order to correctly use models for calculating all friction components
(wellbore, perforation and nearwellbore zone). Also, both, density and viscosity of the fluid used for
RSDT must be uniform, so the hydrostatic pressure and the wellbore friction will be constant and can
be used for proper matching of calculated and measured Total System Friction (TSF).
Once fluid has been pumped through the perforations, bring the rate up to the designed rate.
Typically 3-4 drops in rate are sufficient (2.4, 1.8, 1.2, 0.6, 0 m3/min or in API units 15, 11.5, 7.5, 3.5
bbl/min). It is not required that all flow rate reductions be equal, however, they have to be abrupt. It
is easiest and most convenient to pump with four pumps at about equal rate each, and take out one
pump at a time. Drop the rate until the pressure settles, repeat until the rate is zero (this is
mandatory and record the ISIP which is used in calculating TSF. Also, to record hydraulic transient
harmonic response (water hammer), the last rate must be zero. The procedure is shown in
Figure 11-12.
If downhole pressure gauges are not used, then Bottomhole pressure should be calculated. For
calculation of BHP an accurate determination of friction losses in tubing is necessary. In many
experiments developed worldwide, if a BHP gauge was used, revealed that real friction losses in
tubing are in the range of 30-60% (most frequently around 50%). To be sure that friction losses in
tubing is not overestimated, bottomhole pressure can be compared with BHP corresponding to ISIP
which is not depending by friction. Minimum BHP during pumping (at minimum rate) should be
bigger that BHP at ISIP. Calculated or measured bottomhole pressure minus ISIP for all rates gives the
near wellbore friction and perforations frictions versus injection rate.
Figure 11-12 Rate Step Down Test procedure
Each step of the flow rate reductions should be about 10-20 seconds long what should be enough for
stabilization of the flow rate and pressure. Fracture geometry should change very little during the
RSDT. It should be avoided to pump a small volume ahead followed by long steps, or, pump first
small volume and then a following rates in short steps. Therefore, the volume pumped prior to
initiation of the abrupt flow rate reductions must be fairly large followed by abrupt flow rate
changes. The improper and proper way RSTD design is shown in Figure 11-13.
Figure 11-13 Improper and proper design of RSDT
The RSDT is used to accurately make the difference in friction pressure behavior between the
perforations and near wellbore friction and to exactly define Fracture Entry Friction (FEF). Near-
wellbore friction is a result of near-wellbore fracture tortuosity, existence of multiple fractures in
near-wellbore zone and perforation connectivity with fracture.
The magnitude of the FEF components has served as guidance to design and/or modify the
placement procedure and treatment schedule, in order to reduce unplanned terminations
(screenout) of propped hydraulic fracture treatments.
The perforation friction changes with the square of the flow rate, whereas the near-wellbore friction
changes with the square-root of the flow rate. As shown in this figure, this difference can be
determined when several abrupt flow rate changes are applied to accurately measure near-wellbore
friction. It cannot be predicted, but only can only be quantified field observations.
The general empirical equation to quantify near-wellbore friction is:
∆𝑃𝑓𝑛𝑤𝑏 ≅ 𝐾 × 𝑄𝛽 (11-3)
Where are:
• K – constant, and
• β –exponent between 0.4 and 2 (OMV Petrom best practice: 0.5-0.6)
As it is shown in Figure 11-12, perforation friction is dominant over near-wellbore friction. In the case
that near wellbore friction is larger the entire plot will be above the perforation friction plot. In the
perforation friction dominated regime, it can be seen that the bottomhole pressure changes most for
the higher flow rates. All of these cases are shown in Figure 11-14.
Ref 1
Figure 11-14 Perforation friction dominates (left side) and near-wellbore friction dominates (right side)
• If the rate exponent equals or greater than 2.0 then near wellbore friction is purely a
function of perforation damage and well need to be reperforated.
• If the rate exponent equals or less 0.5 then near wellbore friction is purely a function of
tortuosity (near wellbore fracture restrictions). In this case a proppant slug should be
pumped during minifrac in order to check the formation response to proppant injection.
• If the rate exponent is in between 0.5 and 2 then, both, near wellbore friction and
perforation damage exist.
As it can be seen, the value of the near-wellbore friction coefficient exponent, β, is not always 0.5.
For shallow depth (less than 1200 m) it is slightly larger than 0.5, for hard rock and high stress
conditions it is less than 0.5. For tough rock at great depth, the value of β = 0.5 is used as good
approximation. If the inertial effect is high, what is usually case with complex fracture geometry and
high injection rate then rate β is higher than 1 and it is very difficult to distinguish perforation friction
and near-wellbore loses. In such cases the plots of near-wellbore friction is concave upwards and the
most of pressure loss will be attributed to perforation friction what cause that pressure loss due to
near-wellbore friction will be underestimated and potentially erroneous operation decision can be
made. Results of proper FEF interpretation are used for decision making timely and properly in order
to prevent or reduce unplanned fracture termination (screenout) and therefore to reduce risk that
operation be technically and economically unsuccessful. Additionally, one FEF can be used for
diagnostics of proppant slug response and hydraulic transient response (water hammer). Generally
each field and formation has its own special characteristics; so, it is advisable to establish guidelines
by field, but as well as by geologic formation. The proposed general guidance based on analysis of
over 400 RSDT from all around the world is shown in Table 11-2.
Table 11-2 General guideline based on ranges of FEE component values
Common practice is that step rate test is followed rate step down test, as can be seen for one
selected case in OMV Petrom in Figure 11-15.
Figure 11-15 Step Rate and Step Down test sequences
MiniFrac test
The most important test on the location before the main treatment is known as a Minifrac
(sometimes called Data - or Calibration frac, or Fracture Efficiency) is a series of pump-in tests at or
near main treatment rate followed by a shut-in period or flow-back period, as shown in Figure 11-16.
The best practice in OMV Petrom is to use Pump-In/Shut-in test, as is shown in Figure 11-17. Various
rates and fluids can be used depending on downhole conditions and some technical constraints at
the surface. The tests are performed on a formation to determine hydraulic fracture treatment
design parameters.
Figure 11-16 Typical Micro test Data*
*1)Formation Breakdown; 2) Propagation; 3) Instantaneous Shut-In; 4) Closure Pressure from Fall-Off; 5)

Reopening; 6) Closure Pressure from Flowback; 7) Asymptotic Reservoir Pressure; 8) Closure Pressure from
Rebound
The design goal for the minifrac is to be as representative as possible of the main treatment. To
achieve this objective, sufficient geometry should be created to reflect the fracture geometry of the
main treatment and to obtain an observable closure pressure from the pressure decline curve. The
most representative minifrac would have injection rate to the main treatment and fluid volume
injected as pad volume which is in the most cases equal to the maximum 50 m3. In practice, several
conflicting design criteria must be balanced (created fracture geometry, designed proppant mass,
damage to the formation, a reasonable closure time, and cost of materials and personnel) in order to
optimize fluid volume required for executing minifrac.
The purpose of Minifrac analysis is to get data for estimation the following parameters:
• Fracture Closure Pressure and time (Pump-in/Shut-in test).
• Fracture Net Pressure (Pump-in/Shut-in test).
• Stress profile and fracture geometry using net pressure matching (Pump-in/Shut-in test).
• Fluid loss characteristics (total leak-off coefficient Ct and fluid efficiency) with respect to the
formation, fracture geometry and fracture parameters (Pump-in/Shut-in test).
• Minimum insitu-stress or ISIP (Pump-in/Flow-back test).
Also, by interpretation of the MiniFrac data some additional information about reservoir like
permeability and reservoir pressure can be obtained.
These field calibrated parameters are derived prior to the main fracture treatment, to allow
optimization of its design. Therefore, a minifrac test is always carried out prior to a hydraulic fracture
treatment. Although downhole data is preferred during a minifrac test, accurate surface pressure
recording is adequate. This will reduce costs and avoid the risk of cable parting due to viscous drag
forces by the frac fluid pumped down. The surface pressure data can be entered into evaluation
software packages. A minifrac should be performed by pumping the same fluid to be used for the
main fracture treatment at the designed rate. The injection rate during minifrac test should be
maintained at constant level and for the most performed jobs for off-shore wells injection rate was
not higher that 3000 lit/min, primary because of technical limitation of the pumps injection capacity.
Once the fracture has been initiated, it will propagate with a lower fracturing fluid pressure, since the
stress distortion will rapidly vanish away from the borehole. The downhole propagation pressure
must be higher than the sum of the effective horizontal stress and the reservoir pore pressure. After
pumping is stopped, the wellhead pressure drops rapidly to the ISIP. Pressure losses due to friction
are then eliminated.
Figure 11-17 Typical Micro test Data
The pressure decline is monitored to determine the closure pressure of the perforated interval.
Leak-off coefficient can also be determined by analyzing the pressure falloff data
A MiniFrac can be done to get an approximation of the stresses downhole. If the reservoir is
multizone and if several intervals are perforated then the pressure response will yield the closure
pressures and associated fracture gradients for the all of the zones. Once all of the stresses are
known, the stresses within the zones in the job design are much more reliable, and it is important
that they are not vastly modified at any time during the design or evaluation process.
Flow Back Test
This test, in conjunction with a step-rate test, is the preferred method of determining the closure
pressure. Flow back should start immediately after the step rate test. A typical rig up will employ a
high pressure flow meter to ensure a constant rate. This rate is typically 1/4 to 1/6 the final pumping
rate, and must remain constant. A variable choke and a visual display of the flow allows the
individual flowing the well back to continuously monitor the flow rate to make any changes
necessary. The combination of injection and flow back should be repeated in order to validate the
first test, although the step rate does not have to be done if a clear fracture extension pressure and
closure were determined in the first test. In addition to a choke and a flow meter, another
configuration may be to utilize a fixed choke, pressure gauge and a variable choke. The gauge is
placed between the two chokes and the pressure is kept constant.
Workflow shown in Figure 11-18 gives detailed sequences of HDF data preparation and required test
for planning, designing and execution of HDF operation.
Figure 11-18 HDF data preparation workflow
11.2.7 Rate Changes During the Job and MiniFrac data interpretations
Whenever there are designed rate changes during a frac job (i.e., step-rate-test, step-down-test or
step down at the end of the job, or rate changes during the pumping of the job), they should be
made as quickly as possible. These rate changes should be discussed during the pre-job meeting to
ensure validity of the data, and so the pump operators will understand the necessity and importance
of quick rate changes. Exact rates are not the goal, constant rates are. If a particular rate is desired,
get as close to it as quickly as possible and leave it alone until it is time for the next rate adjustment.
The same holds true during the pumping of the frac job and the step-down at the end of the job. The
rate changes need to be as quick and clean as possible.
MiniFrac data interpretations
Various methods developed for transient well test analysis are used for interpretation of recorded
data during execution of MiniFrac test. The most frequent used are:
• Square Root of Total Time/Time Since Shut-in,
• G-Function Plot,
• Horner Plot, and
• Log-Log Diagnostics.
Square Root of Total Time/Time Since Shut-in
Figure 11-19 illustrates pressure decline during decline versus the square root of pumping time plus
shut-in time. This plot proves to be a more accurate analysis for closure when non-wall building fluids
are used. With field data, closure can be approximated by the intersection of the two straight lines.
Square root of total time is used to magnify slope changes.
Figure 11-19 SQRT MiniFrac data analysis
G-Function Plot
This plot (Figure 11-20) is used to analyze the pressure decline after shut-in and to assist in
determining closure pressure and closure time. Fracture closure is indicated by a deviation from the
straight line. This plot graphs the range of points defined as decline on the job data plot.
Figure 11-20 G-Function Plot for MiniFrac data analysis
Theoretically, the fracture closure period for a pressure independent wall building fluid will appear as
a straight line on the G-function plot. The slope of this line is directly related to the fluid loss
coefficient, closure time is related to fluid efficiency and the net pressure at shut in is related to
Young's Modulus and gross fracture height. Three options are available on this plot to determine the
slope of the straight line portion. Graphic line fit allows the user to place the tangent at any point on
the curve. Forced range allows the user to fit the line between adjustable max and min points on the
curve. The 3/4 rule places a tangent at a point 3/4 of the way between ISIP and the user input
estimate for closure. This is the preferred method as it takes into account non-ideal behavior.
P* is the Nolte Match Pressure, and is proportional to the leakoff coefficient and is determined from
the decline analysis.
𝜋𝐶𝐿 𝑟𝑝 𝑡 0.5
𝑃∗ = 2𝐶𝑓
(11-4)
Where:
• CL – fluid-leak-off coefficient,
• rp – ratio of permeable (or fluid loss) are to fracture area,
• t – injection (pumping) time, and
• cf – fracture compliance (constant of proportionality expressing depends of fracture net
pressure and fracture width – Wf=cfPnet).
Fluid efficiency can also be generated from the G-Function plot, as it is a function of closure time
derived from P* and the net shut-in pressure
Horner Plot
The pressure during decline versus the log of the Horner time, which is defined as [the pumping time
(tp) plus the time since shut-in (Dt shut-in)] divided by the time since shut-in (Dt shut-in), is shown in
Figure 11-21 illustrates Horner plot. This plot is used to identify radial flow which occurs after
fracture closure, and to provide a lower bound of closure. This point is located at the point at which
the curve deviates from a straight line. If radial flow is observed, the data will not deviate from a
straight line, and this line can be extrapolated to obtain an estimate of the reservoir pore pressure.
Figure 11-21 Horner plot for MiniFrac data analysis
Log-Log Diagnostics
This plot considers the difference from the shut-in pressure and the pressure derivative, plotted
against the time since shut-in (Δtshut-in). This plot can be used to identify closure pressure by
investigating linear flow through the fracture after shut-in.
When using field data, closure can be obtained from the intersection of two straight lines, with a
straight line on both the shut-in pressure and the pressure derivative, as shown in Figure 11-22.
Figure 11-22 MiniFrac Log-Log Diagnostic plot
11.3 Fracturing Methods Technology Workflow
After the selection of suitable candidates for a fracturing treatment and preparation of the data
required for designing HDF, a number of steps have to be considered by the designer, when planning
the "ideal“ fracturing treatment. Generally speaking, the design of fracture treatments has three
basic requirements. One is to determine what oil or gas rates and recoveries might be expected from
various fracture lengths and fracture conductivities for a given reservoir. The second is to determine
the fracture treatment design requirements to achieve the desired fracture geometrical parameters
(lengths, width and height) and conductivities. The third is to maximize economic returns.
11.3.1 Propped Fracture Operation Workflow
1. Propped fracturing design elaboration.

• Proppant and fluid is selected based on reservoir stress and rock proprieties.
• Lab testing;
 Proppant crush test,
 Resin coated proppant hardening test,
 Mechanical rock proprieties testing on core, and
 Fluid test;
 Crosslink test at average temperature in tubulars (for crosslinked fluid),
 Rheology test,
 Breaking test,
 Caring capacity test,
 Rehealing after sharing test,
 Compatibility test with reservoir fluid, and
 Retained permeability test on core.
• Propped fracture design tool.
Based on computer simulation the best pumping schedule is chosen.
2. Economic evaluation.
Based on more accurate cost estimation and production forecast cash flow is calculated.
3. Program elaboration.
Program has the following main chapters:
• Well and reservoir data.

• Well preparation recommendation (workover plan, tubing movement and stress analysis /
see Chapter 5).
• Pumping schedule, job hydraulic parameters, simulated fracture parameters.
• Surface facility placement and technical setup (P and ID).
• Production forecast and recommendation for production regime.
• Cash flow.
4. Job execution and QA/QC.
• Tank and chemicals inspection.
• Fluid retesting on well location.
• Execution of SRT/RSDT - Near Wellbore Friction interpretation in order to define an optimum
operating parameters in order to avoid screenout during execution SDT.
• Main frac execution;
 Real time net pressure matching,
 Fluid sample inspection and breaking test, and
 Material balance checking for on fly pumped chemicals (difference must be less than
10%).
5. Report elaboration.
6. Production monitoring and history matching for different fracture geometry (it needs
6 months of production).
7. Cash flow monitoring function of production data.
The general workflow developed using OMV Petrom best practices examples are shown in
Figure 11-23.
Figure 11-23 General Workflow for Well Fracturing Design Process
11.3.2 HDF Design Process
The general workflow of HDF design process (Figure 11-28) shows that data preparation, design
model selection, production increase estimation and economic evaluation are four steps that should
be applied to achieve the final objective of design process. These steps are:
Data preparation (Step Rate Test, Rate Step Down Test and Mini Frac)
Model Selection (fracture propagation model, proppant selection and transport model, heat transfer
simulation, wellbore hydraulic and perforation model, fracturing fluid and additives selection, post
fracture well performance evaluation),
Fracture Parameter Optimization, Sensitivity analysis and Economic and Risk Evaluation
As the fracturing is one of the most costly workover/stimulation operations one of the key objectives
is to design a fracturing treatment with optimized values producing the most cost effective job. By
inputting the design constants half-length and geometry model, and varying formation permeability,
maximum proppant concentration, fluid type, proppant type, fracture height, fracture length,
leak-off coefficient, retained proppant permeability and maximum pump rate, optimize the design
vs. cost. If any variables are constrained, especially the costly variables they will strongly impact NPV
and cash flow analysis should be done to choose the most effective fracture parameters.
11.3.3 Model Selection of fracture propagation
A model must be chosen that fits the formation properties and at the same time, the formation
stresses have to be known to choose a model. The fracture propagates perpendicular to the axis of
least stress. An experienced designer can estimate the geometry model from logs and field history.
The model that gives the smallest width is the proper choice. This will be the model generating the
least amount of net pressure.
Horizontal - the overburden stress is less than in-situ stresses causing horizontal growth, confined to
a single zone. The fracture initiation is from the wellbore diameter. This is the primary model when
the depth is approximately less than 600m (2000 feet).
In order to determine the most likely fracture geometry, ideally, detailed information (in-situ stress
and mechanical properties measurements at top and bottom for relevant zones) is required. This can
be obtained from, minifrac tests or from logs. Also, (extended) casing leak-off tests may provide
information on in-situ stress levels. The calculation of a detailed treatment design can be done with
choosing appropriate fracture model and software.
Two dimensional models are closed form analytical approximations assuming constant and known
fracture height. For petroleum engineering applications, two mutually exclusive models have been
used. For a fracture half length much larger than the fracture height (xf > > hf), the Perkins and Kern
(1961) and Nordgren (1972) or PKN model is an appropriate approximation. The net pressure varies
along the height resulting in elliptical width development. It is a fixed height 2-D model where the
properties of all zones are averaged together. The fracture half-length is much greater than the
fracture height. This model is typical for thin zones
For xf < < hf the appropriate model has been presented by Khristianovic (h) and Zheltov (1955) and
Geertsma and de Klerk (1969). This is well known as the KGD model. The fracture height remains
constant, net pressure decreases and the properties of all zones considered are averaged together.
The fracture half-length is much less than the height. This model is used for very thick zones.
A limiting case, where hf = 2xf, is the radial or "penny shape" model. The fracture height, hf, used
here is the dynamic value, that is, the fracture height at the time that the fracture length is equal to
xf .
Two general groups of models are available: two dimensional (2D) and three dimensional (3D)
models.
The most frequently used 3D models are:

• Full 3D models (all aspects of fracture initiation and propagation are included)
• Planar 3D models (Fracture grows perpendicular to horizontal stress)
• Pseudo 3D models
 Lumped models
 Cell-based models
Full 3D model
The fracture is discretized, and within each block calculations are done based on the fundamental
laws and criteria for propagation. The fracture is allowed to propagate laterally and vertically, and
change plane of original direction, depending on the local stress distribution and rock properties.
Such fully 3D models require significant amounts of data to justify their use and they are extremely
calculation intensive. Full 3D modeling is the best option for modeling fracture propagation in
horizontally and highly deviated wells because the fracture initiation, usually aligned with the well
trajectory, is likely to be different from the direction of fracture propagation, which must be normal
to the minimum, "far field" stress.
The key features of the Full 3D fracturing are:

• 3D elastic equations solved using finite element methods (Figure 11-24),
• 2D fluid flow coupled with linear elastic equations and solved with finite difference models,
• Fracture shape evolves with both time and space,
• Need detailed description of layers to take full advantage of these models, and
• Need powerful computer to solve real problems efficiently.
Figure 11-24 Full 3D model grid
Planar three dimensional (PL3D)
Commonly used PL3D models available on market are: GOHFER (Grid Oriented Hydraulic Fracture
Extension Replicator), a planar 3D finite difference model of Marathon Oil, marketed by STIM-LAB,
Inc..), TerrFrac (Arco) and HYFRAC3D.
Pseudo 3D model
The p-3D models allow vertical fracture migration along the fracture path, and this migration
depends on the stress contrast between the target and adjoining intervals, as it is shown in
Figure 11-25.
Figure 11-25 Lumped p-3D model
Basically, there are two common used pseudo 3D models, lumped and cell based.
Lumped p-3D frac model
The model was proposed and developed by Keck et al. Model used 3D integral equations for crack
opening and fluid flow. The fracture horizontal length and wellbore vertical tip extensions are
calculated at each time step. Vertical profile assumed to be two half-ellipses joined and all variables
are lumped into coefficients that are spatially averaged along ellipses which are shaped to match
these points. 2D models are used to for fluid flow modeling and proppant transport (convection and
settling). Lumped p-3D model has capabilities to allow incorporation of more complex fracturing
mechanisms (dilatancy, multiple fractures, permeability barriers etc.) as it is illustrated in
Figure 11-26 to match observed net pressures in the field and fracture geometry parameterization.
Figure 11-26 Fracture propagation simulated p-3D lumped model
Various commercial hydraulic fracture design programs are available, some of which are:
• FRACPRO, a p-3D fracture model, now marketed by Pinnacle Technologies under name
FracproPT.
• MFrac, a p-3D hydraulic fracturing simulator, of Meyer and Associates.
• FIELDPRO (RES)
Lumped 3D model has been using intensively in OMV Petrom for designing fracturing jobs.
Cell-Based p-3D models
Cell-Based p-3D models are based on 2D-models, but fracture height adjustment along fracture is
based on local fracture pressure. Fluid flow and proppant transport including settling and convection
are modeled by 2D mathematical models. As in the case of lumped models net pressure matching
allowed corrections of design model during job execution.
Commonly industrial used computer programs are:

• STIMPLAN, of NSI Inc, a state of the art 3D hydraulic fracture simulator, now being used in
Shell to design fracturing job under name ENERFRAC.
• Schlumberger uses a proprietary program, called FracCADE (case shown in Figure 11-27)
Figure 11-27 Fracture modeling by FracCADE Cell Based p-3D model
Figure 11-28 The general workflow of HDF design model selection
11.3.4 Net Pressure History Matching and Design Correction
In order to use any fracture model for history matching the net pressure to estimate fracture
geometry, an accurate pay zone closure pressure is needed.
The difference between the ISIP and the closure pressure is net pressure (Figure 11-29). Net pressure
over 70 bars (1000 psi) for a minifrac is rare. If the net pressure is considerably higher than 70 bars,
the closure pressure selected may actually be the reservoir pressure. Another possibility is that the
ISIP is high due to near wellbore problems. When near wellbore problems are encountered the ISIP
may increase representing the near wellbore problem and not the true BHTP inside the main body of
the fracture. From that reason is important to take account the effect of near wellbore friction and to
quantify Fracture Entry Friction (FEF). If quantification of FEF components can be done and if it is
considered in conjunction with fracture tip effects (dilatancy), history matching of net- pressure is
possible. Based on the results of fracturing jobs performed in OMV Petrom, the common value of the
net pressure is around 50 bars.
Figure 11-29 Shut-in Pressure Decline and Observed Net Pressure (ONP)
Net pressure can be expressed in the following form:
𝑃𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑃𝑏ℎ − 𝐹𝐸𝐹 = 𝑃𝑠𝑡 + 𝑃ℎ − �𝐹𝑚𝑤 + 𝐹𝑚𝑝 + 𝐹𝑚𝑛𝑤 � − 𝑃𝑐𝑙 (11-5)
Where:
• Pbh - Bottom hole pressure (bar),
• FEF - Fracture Entry Friction (bar),
• Pst -Surface Treating Pressure (bar),
• Ph - Hydrostatic Pressure (bar),
• Fmw = Measured Wellbore Friction (includes local loses) (bar),
• Fmp = Measured Perforation Friction (bar),
• Fmnw = Near-wellbore Friction (bar), and
• Pcl = Closure Pressure (bar).
Recorded pressure data during minifrac test and RSDT are used to estimate Observed Net Pressure
(ONP). In order to obtain a net pressure history match, a 3D fracture propagation simulator is
required. Real-time monitoring, recording, and analysis features are a distinct advantage, as the
“true” ONP can be calculated while the fracturing treatment is in progress. It enables the engineer
on-site to monitor and determine if the treatment is being placed as per design (safely and
effectively), and, to be able to re-design the treatment in real-time if required and adjust the
operating parameters. Older 2D fracture propagation simulators have some limitations:
• Underestimate the ONP, thus, a Net-pressure history match is not possible.
• Lack real-time monitoring and analysis capabilities, thus, real-time decision making is not
possible.
Net pressure during job execution should not have abrupt changes and if it is happened it might be
indication that wellbore and a nearwellbore friction are not properly determined and has to be
corrected, as shows Figure 11-30. If the ONP is calculated with surface pressure data, it is very likely
that most of the error is introduced at the wellbore friction component. If actual BH Pressure is used
to calculate the ONP, then most all the friction “seen” by the gauge is near wellbore friction.
Figure 11-30 Net-pressure plots showing how to correct for friction in real-time
There are two typical situations:

1. If the ONP goes up, not enough friction is being subtracted.
2. If the ONP goes down, excess friction is subtracted.
To achieve good matching of modeled and measured pressure net-pressures, the friction
components should be calculated accurately and adjust using recorded data during job execution.
Workflow, shown in Figure 11-31 shows the OMV Petrom best practice methodology for net pressure
history matching.
Input model parameters should be changed to obtain a match between observed and modeled net
pressure. Once this is obtained and a good estimate of fracture geometry is obtained, the treatment
may be redesigned for frac treatment optimization and selection optimum geometry of fracture and
its uniform propagation. Example in Figure 11-32 shows results of the first multi-stage fracturing job
completed in OMV Petrom. It has obtained good matching of designed (modeled) data and recorded
data.
Nolte-Smith has published the procedure on how to interpret net pressure during injection. Net
pressure can be used to estimate fracture geometry during design, on site analysis and for post-frac
diagnosis. A graph of log (pn) vs. log (∆t) will produce shapes that can be interpreted. The slopes are
characteristic of various types of fracture geometries and modes of propagation. Therefore, the log-
log plot, its associated slopes and the pressure derivative provide a diagnostic tool for interpreting
the fracturing process. The analyses presume that the pressure measurement represents the actual
fracturing behavior, corrected for near-wellbore effects.
Figure 11-31 Methodology for matching observed and model net pressure
Figure 11-32 Matching of observing and modeled fracture net pressure (OMV Petrom well)
In Figure 11-33 schematically is shown Nolte-Smith diagnostic plot with characteristic shapes of the
curves representing fracture propagation type.
If the fracture is confined by barriers, the net pressure increases as predicted by the PKN model, with
the range from about 1/8 for low efficiency to about 1⁄4 for high efficiency (Model I). As the fracture
pressure increases, it can reach the pressure capacity of the formation. This leads to a regulator
effect, resulting in nearly constant pressure with zero slopes (Model II) because of accelerated fluid
loss primarily near the wellbore. A nearly constant pressure measurement that is equal to the
overburden stress indicates a T-shaped fracture. Controlled fracture height growth into a barrier is
characterized by a gradually decreasing log-log net pressure slope and a constant pressure derivative.
Net pressures steadily decrease if uncontrolled fracture height growth beyond a pinch point occurs.
Fissure-dominated fluid-loss behavior regulates the pressure to a constant value when the fissures
are mechanically opened. If the fissure permeability increases before the mechanical opening occurs,
this response will be preceded by a gradually decreasing log-log slope which is being negative
(Model IV). A significant pressure increase (Model III - two active wings and slope 1 and Model III-a –
one active wing and slope 2) indicates restricted extension with or a screenout near the fracture tip,
whereas a significantly higher slope (1 to 2) should be expected for a restriction nearer the wellbore
than the fracture tip. The log-log plot with its characteristic slopes provides a diagnostic tool
analogous to the log-log plot for identifying flow regimes within a reservoir.
Figure 11-33 Nolte-Smith net pressure interpretation
Uniform fracture propagation and geometry simulated by using 3D fracturing model is shown in
Figure 11-34 and Figure 11-35 (simulated fracture geometry and conductivity is correlated with stress
distribution based on well log interpretation).
Figure 11-34 Simulated Fracture propagation
Figure 11-35 Fracture geometry correlated with log.
Optimization include an NPV and rate return evaluation for various and the most sensitive fracture
geometry parameters (length and width), as shown in Figure 11-36.
PROCESS TECHNO-ECONOMICAL OPTIMISATION OF HIDRAULIC

FRACTURING DESIGN
Nodal Analysis
Forecast Production
Cumulative oil&gas
decrease in function of
production Present value of
time
income
Reservoir
Characteristics
Net income from
cumulative oil and gas
Net present value
production decreased
for interest rate
Calculated Fracture
Fluid Selection
geometry
Xf
Wf
Total fracturing fluid
volume
Fracture geometry (3D Optimization Cost of standard
or 2D model PKD or of process performing hydraulic fracture
KGD) operation operation
Propant Weight
Limitations
Propant selection
NPV
Cost of service
provider
Xf
Figure 11-36 Fracture optimization workflow
11.3.5 Methodology of Acid Fracturing
Acid fracturing, to be applied in inhomogeneous carbonates (over 60% , involves the use of a non-
reactive- "conventional"- low or high viscosity preflush to initiate and propagate a fracture, followed
by the injection of low-viscous acid, usually HCl. As the acid flows along the fracture, portions of the
fracture face are dissolved. Since flowing acid tends to etch the fracture walls in a nonuniform
manner, conductive channels are created which usually remain open when the fracture closes. The
basic principles and objectives of acid fracturing are the same as for propped hydraulic fracturing
treatments in sandstones. In both cases the goal is to produce a conductive fracture with sufficient
length, to allow more effective drainage of the reservoir. The major difference is how fracture
conductivity is achieved. In propped fracturing treatments, sand or other propping agent is placed in
the fracture to prevent closure when pressure is released. Acid fracturing in carbonates relies on
nonuniform etching of fracture faces to provide the required conductivities (Figure 11-37).
Figure 11-37 Mechanism of Acid Fracturing
For homogeneous carbonates, a highly viscous gel preflush is required. This will cause the low viscous
acid to displace the high viscous preflush in a finger-type pattern, as it shown in Figure 11-38, thus
creating high-conductivity flow channels. To prevent these fingers from merging, special perforation
schemes should be applied, e.g. 0.6 m (2 ft) of high-density perforations (4 spf or more) every 1.5 m
(5 ft), and a viscosity ratio between the preflush and acid of around 300 should be maintained. This
process was patented by Shell in the late seventies as the WISPER process (Widely Spaced Etched
Ridges)
Figure 11-38 Schematic of Wide Spread Etched Ridges (WISPER) technology of acid fracturing
Propped acid fracturing
In very soft carbonates, the walls of the etched channel may be too weak to withstand the closing
pressure of the fracture under producing conditions. The channel may lose its conductivity, which
will render the stimulation totally ineffective. To prevent this, proppant may be used to keep the
channels open. Such a treatment then comprises an acid fracturing treatment, followed by a
proppant stage. The advantage of this approach over conventional propped fracturing is that
relatively high fracture conductivity can be obtained with relatively low proppant concentrations.
However, practical results (offshore Denmark and Norway) show a rapid decline of production after
the initial increase in production. With the introduction of more sophisticated fluids and equipment
for conventional fracturing, allowing more aggressive designs with higher sand concentrations, the
application of propped acid fracturing has virtually been abandoned, being replaced by
"conventional" propped hydraulic fracturing in such soft carbonates.
Closed fracture acidizing (CFA)
The injection of a low viscosity acid at a pressure just below the fracture closure pressure of a
previously, or naturally fractured (soft) carbonate formation, is a possible solution for the above
described problem of fracture closure. Although the fracture is closed, it still forms a preferential
flow path for the acid. This causes a wormhole type penetration of the acid along the original
fracture plane, when acid is injected in the closed fracture. Since only a small portion of the overall
fracture face will be dissolved into relatively deep channels or grooves, the remaining unetched
fracture face can hold these channels open under very severe formation closure conditions, without
completely collapsing the etched channels. This is especially beneficial in chalk formations.
Selection candidate for acid fracturing
There are no set guidelines for choosing between acid fracturing and propped fracturing. Historically,
the choice often has been based on individual or collective logic. This results from experience with
previous treatment response in the same field or under conditions that might be considered similar.
Production response is the best criterion for deciding between the two stimulation methods. Relative
cost-effectiveness (value) is also a factor, as it should be. Unfortunately, despite great strides, our
industry is not yet able to accurately model or predict the outcome of an acid fracturing treatment.
Acid fracturing lacks the higher degree of predictability associated with hydraulic fracturing with
nonreactive fluids. However, knowledge of formation conditions can provide guidance for choosing
the type and size of the stimulation treatment.
Several factors suggest the use of propped fracturing:

 Low HCl solubility (<65%-75%).
 A homogeneous carbonate formation (e.g., pure limestones).
 Low acid reactivity (e.g., low-temperature [<150°F] dolomites).
 Very low formation permeability, thus requiring a long fracture.
 Significant softening or creeping of rock under closure after contact with acid, resulting in
poor retention of acid-etched fractures.
The following factors suggest the use of acid fracturing:

 A predominantly naturally fractured carbonate formation, potentially leading to propped-
fracture complications.
 A heterogeneous formation, with porosity and permeability streaks that are conducive to a
higher degree of differential acid etching of the fracture walls.
 Good formation permeability, but with existing formation damage.
 A well that will not mechanically accept proppant.
In general, acid fracturing is the more conservative treatment design because proppant is not
pumped. The risk of failing to complete the treatment is also much lower. There is no risk of
premature screen-out, which can leave the fracturing tubing string full of proppant. Moreover, there
is no risk of proppant flowback, with its troubling consequences.
Another advantage of acid fracturing is that an acid frac can create conductivity to—but not within—
an undesirable sandstone or shale interval. Furthermore, if effective etched conductivity can be
imparted, flow turbulence in the fracture is expected to be less in an open acid fracture than in a
fracture that contains proppant.
Acid fracturing has to be used only where good differential etching is probable. The rock strength and
closure pressure must indicate that good conductivity will remain after fracture closure. Formation
mechanical properties and their response to contact by different acid types and systems must
always be evaluated as best as possible in advance of a treatment program.
A disadvantage of acid fracturing is that controlling the leak-off rate of reactive acid in a fracture is
very difficult. Without the benefit of field experience in a particular formation, prediction of etched
conductivity and fracture length with a high degree of confidence is not possible. This is due to
unknown leak-off characteristics.
Decision which fracturing method should be applied considering advantages and disadvantages of
the conventional fracturing with creating propped fracture and acid fracturing, as well as results of
application in OMV Petrom, the best practice workflow shown in Figure 11-39 is developed.
INPUT DATA
K- Permeability (mD);
E – Young Module of Elasticity (Psi);
Carbonate Content (%);
Solubility (%);
Bottomhole temperature (°C);
No
Solubility in
Acid >75%
Yes
No
K < 10 mD
Yes
No
E >3x106 Propped Frac
Yes
Rock Exposed Yes

to Acid
Release Fines
No
Yes
BHT > 120°C
No Use Highly Retarded Acid

‘’GelFis TM‘’
Standard Acid Frac is

Aplicable
Previous Yes
Propped Frac
was
Successful
No
Acid Frac
Figure 11-39 Acid Frac vs. HDF
11.3.6 Workflow Design Procedure for Acid Frac
There are two general methods of acid fracturing:

• Viscous fingering (pad acid)
• Viscous acid fracturing (used in OMV Petrom)
Viscous fingering
Viscous fingering is a method in which the formation is first hydraulically fractured with nonreactive,
high-viscosity gel, normally cross-linked gelled water. This is used to create the desired fracture
geometry (i.e., length, height, and width) and to cool the formation to slow subsequent reaction of
the acid injected. Next, lower-viscosity acid (HCl or an HCl-organic acid blend) is pumped into the
created fracture.
The acid presumably ringers through the higher viscosity pad because of the viscosity contrast and
consequent mobility difference. This phenomenon is called viscous fingering. It has been posited that
if the viscosity difference is at least about 50 cp, sufficient viscous fingering occurs.
Acid may be viscous or non-viscous. Most often, it is a good idea to thicken the acid to some extent,
especially if HCl is used. Common viscous acid systems are acid-oil emulsion, foamed acid, and gelled
acid (polymer gelled and surfactant gelled). However, viscosity contrast between the acid and the
pad must be significant.
The basic treatment design sequences and typical injection rate using viscous fingering is given in
Table 11-3.
Table 11-3 Basic treatment design using viscous fingering
The acid most commonly used is 15 -20% HCl. Higher concentrations, above 20% or 28% HCl, can also
be used. Higher HCl concentrations have the advantage of being more viscous than 15% HCl, both
initially and after spending. This can help reduce leak-off. HCl-organic acid blends and totally organic
acid blends can be used in place of HCl Organic acids are useful in higher-temperature applications.
Viscous acid fracturing
Viscous acid fracturing uses viscous acid systems such as gelled, emulsified, and foamed acid or
chemically retarded acids and this is the most applicable acid fracture method in OMV Petrom. These
systems are used both to create the fractures and to differentially etch the fracture faces.
Treatments with viscous acid are applicable in heterogeneous carbonates, such as dolomites and
impure limestones.
The basic viscous acid fracturing treatment design includes the following:
• Preflush,
• Viscous acid stage, and
• Overflush.
Preflush
The preflush is used to initiate a fracture and lower the temperature around the fracture. The
preflush is typically slightly gelled (slick) water.
Viscous acid stage
The purpose of the acid stage is to simultaneously propagate the fracture and differentially etch its
walls. The acid stage is typically gelled, emulsified, or foamed acid. Combinations of the three are
possible.
As in all carbonate acid treatments, 15% HCl is most common. Higher-strength HCl, organic acids, and
HCl-organic acid blends are also used. Most acid fracturing treatments are conducted with gelled
acid. Xanthan gum is an excellent gelling agent for up to 15% HCl. The only problem with Xanthan
gum is that, at those concentrations, it does not degrade appreciably at temperatures below 93 oC
(200°F). However, it degrades very rapidly-too rapidly-when HCl concentration is greater than 15%.
Most gelled acids use a polyacrylamide gelling agent. Polyacrylamides can be used at low and high
temperatures. They can also be cross-linked to attain higher viscosity and gel stability. The polymer
cross-link can be established initially for maximum-viscosity acid injection, or the cross-link can be
delayed (temperature induced) to enable low-viscosity, high-rate injection, with viscosity generation
at the formation face or in the formation. Also, there are polymer gelling agent systems that trigger
viscosity in the formation as acid thins or as acid spends (increasing pH). These systems then thin
again as acid spends further, to higher pH, enhancing flowback which is following treatment.
Depending on the commercial system, viscosity development is triggered at a pH in the range
of 2-4.5. These systems are better suited to viscous fingering, as is surfactant-gelled acid, which is
primarily applicable in matrix acid applications. Viscosity (or sustained viscosity) of these systems
may not be sufficient for most applications using viscous acid fracturing.
Overflush
The purpose of the overflush is to displace acid from the wellbore and push the acid volume forward,
thereby increasing the penetration distance. When viscous acid is used, a large overflush can
effectively increase the etched fracture length. The overflush is a critical step in the treatment
design. A high rate is beneficial.
It is possible to pump plain acid in such a treatment. When plain acid is used, acid reaction is very
fast. The acid will dissolve large amounts of rock near the wellbore but will create a short penetration
distance. If a treatment is designed simply to bypass fairly shallow formation damage, plain acid may
be sufficient. If plain acid is used, a large overflush is not needed, because it cannot increase
penetration distance. If the intent of the treatment is to stimulate the formation, viscous acid must
be used.
More complex methods of viscous acid fracturing include alternating stages and alternating acids.
With the alternating-stage technique, acid and gelled water are alternately pumped.
The alternating gelled-water stages serve three purposes:

• Gelled-water stages create greater fracture width, because of higher viscosity.
• Gelled-water stages cool the fracture, thereby increasing depth of acid penetration. (Acid
reaction is exothermic; therefore, localized temperatures in the fracture can become high.)
• Alternating pumping increases penetration distance if the acid is retarded, because the
gelled water reduces acid leak-off from the fracture to the matrix.
With the Alternating-Acid Technique (AAT), two acids with opposite characteristics can be pumped
alternately. One acid mixture typically contains reaction-retarding additives. The other acid mixture is
nonretarded and will react faster, especially near the wellbore. The key purpose is to enhance
differential etching and to increase dissolution of rock near the wellbore.
The basic method of viscous acid fracturing is sufficient for most applications. Alternating-stage and
alternating-acid techniques could be potentially solution in some cases if basic acid fracturing were
unsuccessful and when there are enough information about the previous jobs.
For the stimulation of a new well or a well in a field with no previous acidizing history, though, it is
best to keep the treatment design as simple as possible.
Acid fracturing best practice design workflow in OMV Petrom is based on the following the three
requests:
Proper reactivity control
Use various synthetic polymer gels, surfactant gels and foams, emulsified acid and self diverting
agent to retard chemical reaction and control mass transfer). If straight acid is used then due to
high reaction rate the acid could be spent in relatively short distance from the wellbore
(not more than 10 m) and as results irregular caverns will be created without bypassing damage
and creating high conductivity fracture.
Fluid loss control
To increase fracturing fluid efficiency the acid (HCl) should be viscosified by using linear or
crosslinked gels. Usually the viscosity of acid with linear gel is around 20 cP and this could be
increased to 300 cP with using crosslinked gel. To plug created wormholes (see the
Chapter 9 – Acidizing) dispersed solids can be used . Using various diverting agents (SDA or VDA) can
increase fluid efficiency and losses.
Controlling acid fluid loss and rapid reaction rate, with attention to the other governing parameters
provides the best opportunity to create a long, conductive fracture.
Reason for acid leak-off:

• Natural fissures and fractures.
• Wormholes growth (Viscosifying the acid decreases the leak-off rate and this, in turn,
decreases wormhole length).
• Fluid leakoff into porosity.
100 mesh resin, 100 mesh sand or fine salt are used to first bridge the inlet of the fissures and can
serve as a base for a wall building fluid loss additive to building upon. Fluid loss additives should be
added to gelled fluid stages. The gelled fluid leakoff into the porosity will form a layer of viscous fluid,
functions as a viscosity controlled fluid. Beneficial only where viscosity controlled leak-off coefficient
< compressibility controlled coefficient.
Fracture Conductivity
The conductivity of the fracture is determined by the volume of rock dissolved, the roughness of the
etched rock surface, rock strength and closure stress. If the reaction rate is too high, then the acid
will tend to spend excessively at or near the wellbore, resulting in poor conductivity closer to the tip
of the fracture. High reaction rates can also result in too much rock volume being dissolved, which
may not necessarily lead to higher conductivities once the fracture closes, especially in soft
carbonates. On the other hand, if the reaction rate is too slow, then the amount of rock dissolved
may be insufficient to prevent fracture closure.
Various techniques and materials have been developed, aimed at maximizing fracture conductivity.
The technique most commonly used involves the injection of a viscous pad ahead of the acid. The
presence of this higher viscosity fluid in the fracture promotes viscous fingering of the thinner acid
which follows. This selective acid flow also increases penetration distance and tends to create deep
channels with good conductivity. Propping agents have also been used in acid fracturing treatments
to obtain higher conductivities.
Using acid etched fracture flow tests results can be more realistically estimate required injection rate
and total volume and acid concentration. The results of such test suggest using for the minor acid
frac around 3 m3 of acid/m of perforated interval at injection rate of 100 l/min. The total volume of
acid can be double (6 m3/m) or even triple (9 m3/m) if serious (major) treatment are required.
Generally, acid frac design consists of the flowing main steps:

1. Fluid selection (based on reservoir proprieties).
2. Data preparation (SRT, RSDT, MiniFrac).
3. Laboratory testing is done for carbonate rock - and acid - rock interaction;
 Solubility,
 Capacity to release fines after reaction,
 Young modulus,
 Retardation,
 Acid etching, and
 Compatibility test between acid fluids and reservoir fluid (compatibility test with crude
and formation brine).
4. Computer modeling and simulation is used for selecting the optimum pumping schedule
(injection rate and total volume).
5. Job Execution, monitoring and on site design justification.
6. Post job Analysis.
7. Production Forecast and matching measured production data and predicted.
8. Reporting.
The general workflow of acid fracturing job is shown in Figure 11-40.
Detailed workflow for estimating volume of fluid to be injected per each meter of perforated interval
for various rock type and downhole temperature is shown in Figure 11-41.
Obtain stress magnitude and Young’s

Modulus1 versus depth from logs, cores. Also
Improved or expanded stress
collect other well and formation information:
and modulus data.
lithology, natural fracture locations, porosity.
Check offset well data.
If appropriate fracture geometry model not

Test for different fracture known, do minifrac ( 1/3 to 1/2 length of
model or less length. actual job, no proppant ) to select fracture
geometry model (2D, 3D, MLF).
Select fluids and additives that minimize

Fracture skin or lower
formation and proppant damage and
fracture conductivity?
environmental impact.
Frac model revision

Different reservoir model
Stress revision.
permeability? Is reservoir Obtain permeability and reservoir pressure
Fluid revision
anisotropic? Layered? from well test; porosity fromlogs.
Stress sensitive?
If not done earlier, use SRT, RSDT and

minifrac data to determine correct model, fluid
loss coefficient and treatment efficiency Iteration for revisions.
(volume of fluid pumped versus volume of
fracture, determined mainly by leakoff).
Use net present value (NPV) calculation to

Different fracture geometry
select proppant optimize pump schedule and
model or length?
fracture length, and predict production.
Finalize pump schedule with PLACEMENT

program. The program gives pressure
required during job, frac length at end of job
and distribution of proppant.
Execute job.
Do well test and use program

No Is well producing
to evaluate fracture treatment
as expected?
and reservoir characterization.
Yes
Was bottomhole
Analyze bottomhole pressure Yes
No pressure during Fracture treatment
during execution with various
execution as design is optimal.
fracture models.
expected?
Figure 11-40 Acid Fracturing Best Practice Workflow
Figure 11-41 Acid fracturing workflow for estimating required injecting volume of the fluid
11.3.7 Planning, Execution and Real Time Control of Well Fracturing
Planning Fracturing Job
Planning, execution and evaluation of a fracturing treatment, as in the case of matrix acidizing
treatment requires proper planning of the each stages shown in Table 11-4. The assumptions used in
Chapter 9 are used for fracturing planning, also.
As it can be seen from the table, planning should not only look at the execution, but also include
proper timing for design and evaluation.
Table 11-4 Well Fracturing Planning Schedule
Site Layout Preparations
Fracturing operations require a large plot space to allow all the equipment to be placed on-site at
suitable distances from the wellhead. Site preparation should take place well before mobilization of
the contractor to ensure that equipment requirements can be catered for. For example, if large silos
are used to store several hundred tons of proppant, the ground below the silos may need to be
compacted. A pre-job site inspection should be arranged, so that the service company personnel can
view the layout and equipment placement can be decided upon. Any piece of equipment that may be
a source of fire, should be positioned well away from the wellhead. An open path to the wellhead
and off location should be kept. It is also recommended to keep an open path to the storage tanks, in
case any fluids need to be hauled to or from the location after rigging up. Moreover, a path should be
kept clear behind the pump trucks to allow a tank truck to supply the pump units with gasoline
during the job, if necessary. For a large treatment, it is recommended to measure the dimensions of
the wellsite and to make a scale drawing of the location with the pumps, blenders, tanks, etc.
indicated. Such a scale drawings, will facilitate planning, organization and are shown in Figure 11-42
to Figure 11-47 (HDF off-shore well- Figure 11-42, Acid Fracturing off-shore –Figure 11-43 and
Figure 11-44, HDF in onshore well – Figure 11-45 and Figure 11-46, Acid Frac in on-shore well –
Figure 11-47). The actual distances between the various pieces of equipment, including lines and
wellhead, should take account of local HSE requirements and legislation. The contractor should
supply drawings of the equipment layout with respect to the site dimensions. High pressure area
should be marked.
Equipment and documents needed on job site:

• Oil company workover procedure with data sheet containing the reservoir properties, such
as bottomhole pressure, porosity, permeability, temperature,
• Service company stimulation recommendation,
• Logs with perforations and collars premarked,
• Tank strap,
• Sand sieves,
• Service company reference tables,
• Containers for samples,
• Quality Control Forms,
• Hardhead and steel-toed boots,
• Farm 35 or equivalent viscometer or availability of same from service company, and
• Water test equipment (or obtain from the service company);
 pH meter or paper,
 Thermometer,
 Iron test kit,
 Phosphate test kit,
 Total dissolved solids tester,
 Reducing agent tester, and
 Chloride test kit.
Figure 11-42 Surface facility and site layout for HDF (off-shore well)
Figure 11-43 Surface facility and site layout for acid frac( off-shore well )
Figure 11-44 Real technical setup on boat and site layout for acid frac(off-shore well )
Figure 11-45 Surface facility and site layout for HDF (on-shore well)
Figure 11-46 Real technical setup for HDF (on-shore well)
Figure 11-47 Surface equipment and site layout for Acid Fracturing (on-shore well)
The frac tanks are usually the first to arrive on location. Ideally, tanks should be lined (epoxy coated)
and steam cleaned, to prevent iron from contaminating water and interfering with proper gelatin
and crosslinking of fracturing fluids. If this is not feasible, the tanks that are available, should at least
be steam cleaned. Tanks that arrive at location should have the hatches open, and be inspected
visually to ensure their cleanliness and to certify the integrity of linings (if applicable). To further
ensure stimulation fluid cleanliness, all transport tanks should be cleaned in the same manner.
To assure that in case of failure job operation can continue without excess Non-Productive Time
(NPT) the following excess equipment for backup, is recommended for fracture treatments:
• 10% excess tank and storage capacity.

• 50% backup on power.
• 20-50% backup on pumps, depending on the number of pumps. If only one pump will be
used for job execution, then one additional pump should be prepared as backup.
• Sufficient backup on blenders and instrumentation (up to 100%).
As job size and complexity increases, more backup equipment, specifically pumps, is required. Some
pump trucks have two pumps, but only one power source for both. Check to make sure that the
stimulation contractor understands that backup means both in pumps and in power.
Execution Fracturing Job
• Check continuously the proper functioning of the pumps, blenders, monitoring equipment,
etc.
• Alert all personnel.
• Continuously check the quality of the fracturing fluid and the proppant.
• Take samples of the fracturing fluid and proppants at all stages of the treatment for later
reference.
• Continuously observe the pressures, rate, and density proppant concentration.
• If the observed pressures deviate significantly from the predicted pressures, adjust the
program, preferably based on basic contingency plans worked out before the treatment.
• In case of a premature termination of the job, immediately inform the rig/installation
supervisor to take appropriate action (e.g. circulate out any proppant laden fluid). Make sure
all (local) HSE requirements are met at all times.
Real Time Control
When executing fracturing treatments the most important is to be open to respond to occurrences
that go on during the treatment. Very often, it is required to vary pump rate and/or sand
concentrations and not strictly followed the recommendations and results generated through the
comprehensive and complex computer simulation of fracturing process. Ideal fracture world in the
most of occasions different than real world as it is illustrated in Figure 11-48.
Figure 11-48 Fracture geometry and propagation changes
Knowing that the majority of input data information in fracturing treatments are estimated, it
strongly recommended to react on recorded real time data and to change the scheduled pump rate,
proppant concentrations or even stop the operation if it is not safe to continue. With this in mind,
when pressures start turning upward in opposition to what is has normally seen, it is preferable to
increase the pump rate rapidly, but within pressure limitations. By doing this, in the majority of cases
it will be able to change the slope of the pressure and get the treatment away. Also, in the case of
multiple-stage concerning to the sand concentrations, it is mandatory to be open to change sand
concentrations built around pressure responses seen down-hole. If a highly conductive propped
fracture in near wellbore is trying to be created, many times sand concentrations at a more rapid
mode than what is shown in design will be increased, even design has been done by ourselves. For
obtaining long, highly conductive fractures in very tight reservoirs, it must be taken into account the
effects of increasing sand concentrations on negating propped fracture length.
Experienced and knowledge supervisor of a fracturing treatment should always respond to pressures
that he sees during the treatment, rather than depend on design information that is many times
estimated, based around offset well information.
It is preferred to utilize surface treating pressures and monitor increases and decreases of that
pressure in relationship to what is going on in the tubulars or casing. Most of the information that
gives us calculated bottomhole treating pressures is erroneous, and the variations and changes in
pressure that occur in relationship to net pressure can be misinterpreted. In fact, these changes are
misinterpreted regularly by personnel who simply don't understand what is going on downhole or
who are not aware of changes that may be going on with the fracturing fluid in real time. Because of
that application of Nolte-Smith plots using calculated bottomhole pressure data for on-site real time
HDF diagnosis could potentially cause mistaken diagnosis.
One of the biggest mistakes made in fracturing is trying to follow designs without utilizing
information from the formation during the actual treatment. The best is if during the fracturing
treatment bottomhole pressure data can be recorded and used for making intelligent decision. One
of the biggest mistakes is to try to make intelligent decisions based upon calculated bottomhole
pressure data.
Examples in Figure 11-49 and Figure 11-50 shows monitored and design parameters for the selected
OMV Petrom well’s which has been hydraulically fractured. Job parameters were monitored in real
time by using control and command center (Figure 11-51). According to the best practice and lesson
learned collected during long history of fracturing application, the designed pumping schedule can be
changed only if supervisor of Service Company and OMV Petrom expert advisor have agreed.
Figure 11-49 Job execution data – Design versus recorded data
Figure 11-50 Job execution data – Main frac design versus recorded data
Figure 11-51 Command and control system during HDF job execution
11.4 Downhole Completion Well Schematic for Fracturing
The type of downhole completion depend on the number of intervals which are fractured and well
geometry (vertical, slant and horizontal). In the case of new wells in which they are planned for
fracturing, completion method should be considered before drilling to allow single trip without thru-
tubing intervention. Usual case of offshore fractured wells in OMV Petrom is that a relatively long
open-hole section has been multistage fractured. Multi stage fractured wells have been equipped
with production liners, hydraulic or swellable external casing packers and frac or frac and production
ports between them. The maximum number of stages fractured on OMV Petrom SA offshore wells
was eight, but there is a plan to do up to twelve frac stages.
Chapter 5 describes in details all downhole completion tools and here are selected the cases/wells
illustrates the best practice of fractured offshore and onshore wells.
Packers Plus System
Allows multistage frac job and selective selection of production intervals after frac job by closing
some of frac ports if results of fracture job are not as expected.
Figure 11-52 Multi-zone multi stage fractured well completion (Open hole with liner)
The location of the frac/production ports should be defined using well logs, as shown in Figure 11-53.
Figure 11-53 Well log correlated with packer and port placement
In some case it is needed to fracture a cased vertical well with several open intervals with high water
cut. The applied final recompletion method with isolation of the lower interval/s with high water cut
and fractured upper interval is shown in Figure 11-54 and Figure 11-55. The conventional completion
types with single tubing string and packer (mechanical or hydraulic) set above fractured interval.
Figure 11-54 Recompleted (plugged and fractured) vertical well with one open interval
Figure 11-55 Recompleted (plugged and fractured) vertical well with two or more open intervals
In the case that horizontal well is completed with a liner and open-hole packers (inflatable ECP or
swellable packer) for multistage fracturing, then the completion system shown in Figure 11-56
should enable a single trip, multistage fracturing with operation sequences as shown in Figure 11-57.
Figure 11-56 Final well completion after multistage fracturing
Figure 11-57 Operation Sequences of multistage fracturing using open-hole packer
The same system is applicable to vertical and high-angle deviated well, also. The main completion
components of this system are:
• Liner hanger or liner packer in cased hole.
• Open Hole External Casing Packer (OHECP)
• Zonal Isolation Sliding Sleeve (ZISS)
• Zonal Isolation Toe Sleeve (ZITS)
• Balls
Operation sequences are:
1. Run-in string, set the liner hanger or packer and the open-hole packers.
2. Start pumping the frac, hydraulically open ZITS.
3. Continue pumping the fracturing fluid, drop the smallest ball to seat in the lowest ZISS and
hydraulically open the sleeve.
4. Drop the next-largest ball to seat in the next ZISS isolating the wellbore and hydraulically
open the sleeve.
5. Drop the last ball and complete fracturing job.
6. Produce the well to clean up proppant and balls.
7. Mill-out balls that remain and all ball seats.
8. Run the well in production.
11.5 Surface Equipment for Fracturing
The most frequent surface equipment for fracturing job and summarized technical information are
shown in Table 11-5. Detailed technical specification of equipment of various service companies is
shown in Appendix 11- A.
Counter 11-5 Specifications of surface equipment
Equipment Characteristics
Blender Fully automated. All
TACROM proppant and chemical
additions are strictly
controlled and recorded.
Blending Capacity
3
10 m /minute
2 sand augers ( each 50 to
3500 kg/minute)
2 liquid chemical pumps.
(both 0.5 to 28 l/minute)
2 dry chemical screws.
(0ne 0.1 to 4 kg/min, 0ne
0.5 to 8 kg/min)
2 turbine and 2
electromagnetic flow
meters for exceptionally
accurate volume
measurement.
Blender Slurry Tub - 4 Bbl
Halliburton operating volume
Automatic Remote
Control (ARC) System
Proppant System: 2-12”
screws - Range 56-
20,000 lb/min
Engines: Centrifugal Skid
- 490 HP, Mixing Skid -
490 Hp
Blender Pumps at rate to 25-70

SLB bbl/min or 18,000 psi with
optimal plunger size
Blends at rates to 35-70
bbl/min
Precisely controls the
solid/liquid ratio at design
values
Offers fully automated mode
for use in conjunction with the
FracCAT fracturing computer
aided
treatment system with set
points received from a host
system
Communicates with FracCAT
system
Loads and pumps two liquid
additives into the suction or
discharge of the mix
Meters dry additives into
mixer
Pump unit Triplex or
Stewart Quintuplex
Stevenson Trailer or Skid
Mounted. There is
bodyload type.
Engine rating: 500—
3000 BHP
Control system: Stewart
and Stevenson AccuFrac
Transmisson:Allison
Maximum ambient
operating temperature:
o
Pump unit 60 C
Stewart
Stevenson
Pump unit Two Engines Type

Halliburton Caterpillar with Allison
Transmission
Break Horsepower –
1250 HHP each engine
Hydraulic Horsepower:
1000 HHP each
Pump plunger size:
4” (2.6-15.3 bpm, max.
pressure: 14000psi) and
4.5” (3.3-19.4 bpm,
Max. pressure 11200
psi)
Electrical 800HP
Powered
Proppant Silo
25 t and 34 t
Proppant
Delivery Truck
Schlumberger
Fluid tanks
Mobile filtering
and heating
unit
Manifold
11.6 Fluids and Materials Used for Fracturing
Fracture fluids are designed to accomplish the following requirements:

1. Compatible with the formation rock and fluids at in-situ temperature and pressure, to
prevent reduction in overall performance.
2. Must generate adequate fracture width to accept the proppant.
3. The friction losses in the tubulars should be small, to keep the horsepower requirements as
low as possible.
4. The fluid loss to the formation should be as low as possible, i.e. it should be an efficient fluid
(the fluid efficiency is the fraction of fluid leaked off to the formation, compared to the total
amount of fluid pumped).
5. Capable of suspending proppants and transporting them deep into the fracture.
6. Ability to adjust viscosity on location and maintain viscosity during the treatment and break
afterwards. After breaking, they should (ideally) be residue-free, to prevent damage of the
propped fracture.
7. Ease of blending on location.
8. They should not create a hazard to personnel and/or the environment.
9. Cost effective.
The fulfill some of above requirement, sometimes the low viscosity fracturing fluid will be required,
but very often a high viscosity fracturing fluid will be needed. Therefore, the fluid system for a
treatment should be carefully selected and usually a significant amount of laboratory testing is
needed to quantify the fracturing fluid behavior under in-situ conditions.
11.6.1 Fracturing Fluids used in OMV Petrom
The first frac fluid utilized in the industry was fresh water mixed with a polymer or acrylamide based
friction reduce, known as slick water. Slick water is the most economical and from operation point of
view simple for application. It is recommended to use in very low permeability formation such as
unconventional shale.
Water based fluids (linear and crosslinked gels) are the most common fracturing fluids because of
cost and ease in preparation.
Foams are used in underpressured applications to aid in cleanup and also in cases where water
damage is a concern.
Linear Gels
Linear Gels are a mixture of of polymer in water at concentrations of up to 20 to 60, typically

between 20-30, pounds per thousand gallons, (pptg). They can be used, in both, high and low
permeability formation to aid in placement of higher proppant concentrations. Through the use of
gelling agents and other additives, water-based fluids can be made to satisfy most requirements for a
suitable fracturing fluid. They are versatile, usually cheaper than other types of fracturing fluid, give
few handling problems and are virtually hazardless to personnel and/or environment. Water-based
fluids are readily available, give low friction losses and can be used over a wide temperature range.
However, they are not always compatible with the reservoir fluids and rock.
Viscosity is one of the most important qualities associated with a fracturing fluid. There are two basic
viscosity-producing, or gelling, agents for a water-based fracturing fluid to produce a linear gel.
There are:
Guar gum: Natural, branched chain, polysaccharide polymer. It provides a very good reduction in
friction pressure, degrades fairly rapidly above 80°C, but it contains 5 - 10% insoluble residue upon
breaking.
• Guar.
Guar derivatives - Their properties and viscosity developments are similar to that of guar, but they
hydrate faster at lower temperatures, give less residue (about 1%) and have higher temperature
stability. Water containing high concentrations of methanol, will be viscosified, also.
• HydroxyPropylGuar (HPG)
• CarboxyMethylHydroxyPropylGuar (CMHPG)
Ceullulose derivatives -They provide a good reduction in friction pressure and they do not degrade at
temperatures up to 200°C. The cellulose fluids are very clean (low residue), and are used when
fracture conductivity is important.
• HydroxyEthylCellulose (HEC)
• CarboxyMethylHydroxyEthylCellulose (CMHEC)
• CarboxyMethylCellulose (CMC)
Water-based fracturing fluids, which are polymer-free, can be prepared using viscoelastic surfactants
(VES). Entanglement of the micelles results in a network that makes the fluid viscous, and gives the
fluid proppant carrying characteristics. The micellar structure of VES fluids is permanently disrupted
by contact with liquid hydrocarbons or formation water. The principal advantage of VES fluids is that
no residue is left in the proppant pack. Their main disadvantages are their current limited
temperature application, of up to 95°C and they cannot be used in dry gas wells and with resin
coated proppant. The costs are increasing as more processing is required. Guar is the most cheapest
and CMSHEC the most expensive polymers.
The Table 11-6 presents the most common used fracturing fluid type, composition and for what they
should be used.
Table 11-6 Fracturing fluids summary
Crosslinked Fracturing Fluids
Crosslinkers were first introduced in the 1960’s to increase the fluid viscosity and improve proppant
transport above what could be obtained from linear gels. Delayed crosslinkers were introduced in the
1970’s to reduce friction pressure.
Crosslinked fluids achieve high viscosity at relatively low polymer loadings. This minimizes the
amount of gel residue in the formation. The trade-off of using a high viscosity crosslinked fluid is the
concern of “breaking” the fluid after the treatment.
Linear gels can be crosslinked with a multitude of metal ions in order to increase viscosity of linear
gel. Crosslinking results in an increase in viscosity from 5 to 100-fold in the range of shear rates
important for fracturing and they are added at low concentrations (0.5-5 gallons/1000gal. The most
popular ones currently used in the industry is boron (B), followed by zirconium (Zr), and to smaller
extent, titanium (Ti), antimony (Sb) and aluminum (Al). To prepare these fluids, guar gum or guar
derivatives are commonly used to viscosify the low viscous fluids. Maintaining the right pH is
essential for optimal crosslinking. The friction pressures lie between those of gelled and ungelled
water, the fluid loss control is better than with low-viscosity fluids, and proppant transport is
excellent. In Table 11-7 are summarized commonly used crosslinked water-based fracturing fluids
Table 11-7 Crosslinked water-based fracturing fluids
11.6.2 Fracturing Fluid Additives
Fluid additives are materials used to produce a specific effect, independent of fluid type. When using
additives, however, their relative compatibility needs to be carefully verified. And in general, the
question should be asked whether the additive, mostly advocated by the service companies, is really
required. The basic principle of using additives in fracturing fluids should be to keep it as simple as
possible.
There are many additives that are required for a fracture fluid, as shown in Table 11-8.
Table 11-8 Summary of the common used additives
Biocide -Prevents viscosity loss to bacterial degradation; protects formation from anaerobic bacteria
growth. Aerobic bacteria grows in the presence of oxygen. It will reduce the base fluid viscosity
significantly, possibly jeopardizing the fracture treatment. It can also affect the chemical reactions
between gel and crosslinker in tanks.
Anaerobic bacteria grows in the reservoir where there is no free oxygen and can affect reservoir fluid
properties as well as generate hydrogen sulfide gas creating serious problem with corrosion of
downhole equipment. Biocides are required to control growth of both aerobic and anaerobic
bacteria. The best practice is to always use properly selected biocide if water based fracturing fluid
will be used for operation. Usually, bacteria attack the organic polymers, destroy the bonds and
reduce the viscosity.
Breaker - Enables viscous fracturing fluids to be degraded controllably to a thin fluid that can be
produced back out of fracture and enhances proppant distribution. Breaker systems in use include
enzymes, persulfates and high temperature oxidizers. In encapsulated form, they can be used in
higher concentrations for delayed, but more complete breaking. Their use depends on the prevailing
pH and temperature (Table 11-9) and polymer loading.
Table 11-9 Conditions for breakers application
Laboratory tests and pilot on breakers should be carried out before incorporating them in a
fracturing treatment. Also, on site laboratory analysis of the frac fluid sample with breakers is
mandatory. One not broken fluid sample is shown in Figure 11-58.
Unbroken Fluid Sample Broken Fluid Sample
Figure 11-58 Unbroken and broken fluid sample
Buffer- Controls the pH for specific crosslinkers and crosslink time; speeds up or slows down the
hydration of certain polymers. Typical products are sodium bicarbonate, fumaric acid (a weak organic
acid), combinations of mono and disodiumphosphate, soda ash, sodium acetate and combinations
thereof.
Clay stabilizer - Prevents fines migration; prevents clay swelling; prevents clay/sand matrix from
desegregating and provides temporary compatibility of fracturing fluid with water-swelling clays. The
most commonly used clay stabilizing agent is KCl. Almost all treatments in sandstone reservoirs are
designed to contain KCl. Other clay-stabilizing agents are ammonium chloride and calcium chloride,
which act like KCl. Other chemicals that also prevent migration of fines are certain modified
polyamines, polymeric clay stabilizers and polymeric solutions of hydroxyaluminium.
Diverting agent - Diverts flow of the fracturing fluid to a different perforated interval by plugging off
either the perforations of some part of the formation.
Fluid loss additive- Improves the fracturing fluid efficiency. The most common water-based fluid-loss
additive is finely ground silica flour, with particles ranging from 0.1 to 50 microns. Starches, diesel,
gums, resins and soaps are also being used and they tend to plug the face of the fracture with very
little penetration into the formation matrix.
Friction reducer - Reduces the friction resistance due to fluid flowing in pipe.
Iron controller- Keeps under-earth iron ion products in solution; prevents formation damage from
iron ion products.
Surfactant- Assists in fluid cleanup by lowering surface tension; minimizes emulsion problems;
enhances maintenance of relative permeability. They are usually included in most fracturing
treatments.
Gel stabilizer- Protects the fracturing fluid from degradation at high bottomhole temperatures by
removing free oxygen from the system.
Using different types of additives and selecting the proper mixture and concentration of additives
always should be in balance in order to maintain required viscosity of the fracturing fluid.
In Table 11-10 are listed the additives which directly affects or not the fracture fluid viscosity as the
key fluid properties that has to provide proper carrying properties.
Table 11-10 Additives vs. Viscosity
Affect Viscosity Doesn’t Affect Viscosity

Polymers Biocides
Crosslinkers Surfactant
Breakers Clay Stabilizers
Buffers Friction Reducers
Foamers Diverting Agents
Temperature Stabilizers Fluid Loss Additives
11.6.3 Foams/Energized fluids
Foamed fluids generally contain 60-80% vol. nitrogen and 40-20% vol. water with surfactants (to
stabilize the emulsion) and sometimes with a gelling agent and a fluid loss control agent. Their
application is attractive in shallow, low-permeability gas wells and zones containing water-sensitive
clays. They give high fracturing surface pressures but rapid well clean-up due to low hydrostatic
head, and the inherent energizing capability of the fluid, caused by the entrained gas. Foam also has
the advantage in that it places the minimum amount of fluid on the formation. However, proper
foam stability during the entire treatment is operationally difficult to achieve, and blending of
proppant concentrations of over 4 lbs/gal is not advisable.
11.6.4 Proppants
The propping agents currently in use by the industry are sand, intermediate strength proppant
(ceramic material) and high strength proppant (e.g. sintered bauxite). All of these proppants can be
coated with a resin. Sand can be used up to a maximum closure stress of 276 bars (4000 psi).
Intermediate strength proppant can be used up to a closing stress of 8000 psi. High strength
proppant can be used up to 15000 psi or higher.
The specification of fracturing sand size of the most frequently used in OMV Petrom according to API
RP 58 is shown in Table 11-11.
Table 11-11 Fracturing sand characteristics
Proppant particle size has a significant effect on packed fracture permeability, and, in principle, the
larger the size, the higher the permeability of the proppant pack. However, as stress levels increase,
larger sand grains will crush earlier than smaller sand grains, which will result in a poorer sorting and
thus in a lower conductivity.
Resin-Coated Proppants (RCP)
The objectives of using resin-coated proppant are to provide increased strength to the proppant pack
and to prevent the back production of proppant. It is recommended to use final stage of packing
process. There are various types of RCPs (precured-tempered, curable and stress bonding or partially
cured).
Precured RCP - Improve strength and crush resistance of the proppant. It is especially used in
combination with sand as a cost-effective alternative for intermediate strength ceramic proppants.
Precured RCPs are not being used for the prevention of proppant back production.
Curable-RCP – It will form strong proppant packs, but the resin coating of these proppants has a poor
fluid compatibility, and the resin will interact with the fracturing fluid chemistry. The resin will cure
without confining stress and it will therefore consolidate in the wellbore after under displacement or
premature screen-out.
Stress Bonding RCP - This type of RCP is less reactive with fracturing fluids, but compatibility should
always be checked. The fact that also stress is required for consolidation, could be a potential
disadvantage, however. If the proppant is not homogeneously distributed over the fracture, a poorly
consolidated pack could exist in low stress regions. Stress bonding RCP is the most commonly applied
type resin-coated proppant at present.
As the proppant-carrying fracturing fluid is a complex mixture of several additives, many of additives
can react with the resin coating of RCP, resulting in a reduced strength and/or poor frac fluid
performance.
Crosslinker - Titanate and zirconate based crosslinkers can severely reduce the strength of the
proppant pack, since the crosslinker reacts with the active sites of the resin. Hence, less crosslinker is
then available for crosslinking of the fluid, which leads to a reduced viscosity. It is recommended to
use borate crosslinkers as this effect is significantly less.
If borate crosslinker is used with RCP, then a high pH is required to form crosslinks. As phenolic resign
tend to dissolve in high pH solutions, the strength of RCP can quickly decrease when the pH is
approaches 12. At the same time, dissolved resin lowers pH of the fluid, which causes the gel to
become less viscous, or even change it into a non-crosslinked linear gel that has no proppant carrying
capacity. The mutual interaction between RCPs and fracturing fluid becomes very important at
elevated temperatures (above 100°C) when a high pH is required to maintain proppant carrying
capacity of the frac fluid. Partially cured RCPs have been successfully used in combination with
borate fracturing fluids in reservoir temperatures as high as 150°C.
Phenolic coatings have a tendency to interact with the oxidizing breaker that is added to break the
crosslinked fluid after the treatment. The breaker can be consumed by the RCPs, thereby leaving less
breaker to break the gel, which results in a more viscous fluid remaining in the fracture, poor cleanup
and a lower fracture conductivity. It can therefore be required to increase the breaker concentration.
However, the strength of the RCP pack is generally not affected by the interaction with the breaker.
In general, RCPs cannot be used with viscoelastic surfactants (VES) fluids.
Proppant Back Production
Considerable amounts of proppant (up to 25-30%) can be produced back from a created fracture.
The most frequent of proppant back production is at high rate during well clean up. Also, at lower
rate there is persistent proppant back production without affecting well productivity. Proppant back
production is the cause of major operational problems, especially in offshore environments. It can
lead to hazardous situations due to erosion of pipelines and surface equipment.
How to cure proppant back production?
If possible, width of created fracture should be less than 1 cm, an optimum is 0.5 mm, assuming that
sufficient fracture conductivity is achieved. If more fracture width is required, what is generally
common case, then other prevention method should be used, like RCP or installing screen/s. Limiting
production by choking the well is always possible, but it is strongly depend on target production. If
RCP is used to prevent proppant back production, it is it is strongly recommended to use 100%
coated proppant instead of tailing-in only the last 10- 25% of the treatment, as practiced by some
operators. It should be matched with costs and expected revenue of fracturing operation.
11.7 Quality and Safety Requirements for Fracturing
11.7.1 Quality Assurance and Control of Fracturing Operations
A fracturing treatment is always challenge because of the existence of many unknowns This is
especially true if the well is a little deeper or a little hotter than usual or if a new procedure is
attempted, pumping a new fluid, or trying out a new system. What was going on downhole during
and after fracturing remains without proper answer and explanation?
Hydraulic fracturing, even in shallow wells, is a risky and potentially dangerous process and every
efforts should be made in the following procedure to ensure the safest procedures to be followed, a
specific checklist has to be supplied which will be filled out on every treatment. It is strongly
recommend that this be supplied ensure the safest procedures to be followed. A specific checklist
will be supplied which will be filled out on every treatment. It is recommended that this be supplied
to the service company so that the treatments will be done in a mutually cooperative manner.
On site quality control
Good quality control by the oil company and the service company will assure that fracturing
treatment is executed as designed.
The Material Safety Data Sheet for all the chemicals to be used during the fracturing has to be on
site. No chemical spillage is accepted or trashes on site are allowed (Figure 11-59). All the fluids
produced during the cleanup have been disposed.
Figure 11-59 Do not trash materials on site
In the case that there is deviation of the agreed design program, it will likely be necessary from time
to time, to make "on-the-job" decisions, mostly based on results of the minifrac test, or when
treatments do not proceed as planned. The best practice is that responsibility for such a program
change lies with the company appointed representative. The best practice in OMV Petrom is that
company appointed representative is the person who has prepared fracture design. The optimum
decision, however, requires familiarization with the design rationale and treatment objectives.
Consequently, in such a situation, the person best placed to make decision and change the scheduled
design in agreement with authorized contractor staff, is the person who designed the job. The best
practice in OMV Petrom is that this individual is on -site. Where this is not possible, he still has the
responsibility to ensure that the company representative has the necessary background
information/knowledge to make the appropriate decision, possibly in consultation with relevant
contractor staff, which has the necessary knowledge/expertise. This may be facilitated through a
properly documented contingency plan and/or a thorough pre-job briefing of the CAR/Operations/
Contractor personnel, who will be involved in the operation. To ensure the most successful result of
a fracture stimulation treatment, a stimulation specialist familiar with the treatment design and with
all the necessary background information, should be on-site during a fracturing operation, or at least
be reachable.
QC Prior Treatment
During fracturing, the well will be exposed to much higher pressures than during production.
Therefore, the well conditions need to be checked before starting job.
Laboratory testing
Laboratory testing is to be carried out in the field prior to, and during the treatment. Although
perhaps more difficult because of poorer working conditions, it is most important to ensure that the
fluids prepared on location and pumped into the well, have similar properties to the fluids selected
on the basis of the initial laboratory tests and to the parameters used in the design. Failure to carry
out those quality control checks will almost certainly result in the treatment not being pumped
exactly as designed. These tests should be performed on samples of the chemicals supplied to the
field. This will initially certify that each individual material meets the specifications laid down and will
pass the final quality control check. After each material has been tested individually, they should
then be tested as collective fluid using location water. Field testing will identify any incompatibilities
due to contamination.
Prior to the treatment

• Source Water (Mineral content of mix water -iron, calcium, magnesium, boron, Presence of
bacteria in the mix water etc.).
• Gel System (s) Base gel viscosity variation over time (bacterial degradation!).
• Proppants.
During the treatment

• Collect samples every 10 minutes during a large treatment, every 4 – 5 minutes during a
small treatment.
• pH (for borate crosslinked systems).
• Base gel viscosity (for liquid gel concentrates).
Source water testing
Source water should be quality-tested and rated acceptable before it is used for a fracturing job.
Analysis and testing of source water allow the detection of components that could alter fracturing
fluid properties. The degree of alteration depends on several factors:
• Fluid system,
• Concentration of the contaminant,
• Expected temperature,
• Contact time between the contaminant and the fluid system, and
• pH of the system and other factors.
Minimum frac water quality standard is shown in Table 11-12.
Table 11-12 Water Quality Standard Requirements
Parameter Limit
Bacteria < 105 ml
pH 6-8
Temperature 4-38 °C (40-100 °F)
Bicarbonates <300 ppm
Calcium and Magnesium <2000ppm
Iron <10 ppm
Phosphates <5ppm
Reducing Agents 0 ppm
Sulfates 0 ppm
Gel System
Purpose of gel system testing is to determine the crosslink time of a fluid system. Gel crosslink time is
defined as the time elapsed from addition of the crosslinker to the development of viscosity
characteristics of a crosslinked gel.
The crosslink time test should be performed with base gel and addition of crosslinker. The
established methods are the vortex closure test in a Waring blender, and the gel lipping test (the
standard procedures for such tests are available with the contractor). The values for the crosslink
time should be long enough to ensure that crosslinking does not occur until the fluid is at least
halfway down the tubing (for delayed crosslinked systems). Since shear conditions in the vortex
closure test, using a Waring-type blender, are significantly different from those in the lipping test,
lipping crosslink times are 1.5 – 2 times longer than those determined in the vortex closure test.
The required data for testing are:
• Initial fluid temperature.
• Perforation temperature estimated with computer program such as WTEMP.
• Pipe time (time for the fluid to flow from the surface to perforations).
• Bath temperature to obtain correct heating rate
Vortex closure time procedure is:

1. Place 200 ml of the base gel in a 500 ml blender jar.
2. Set the speed of the blender so the depth of the vortex is to the hub of the blender blade
assembly.
3. Add on-the fly additives (breaker and buffer) and then the crosslinker and start the timer.
4. When the vortex closes, the surface of the fluid becomes domed and/or no longer circulates
distinctly to the middle (vortex moves around and doesn’t stay centered), stop the timer.
5. The time determined from step 4 above is the crosslink time as determined by vortex
closure.
6. Record the time on QC form.
Lipping time procedure (without hot water bath) is:

• Place 200 ml of the base gel in a 500 ml blender jar.
• Set the speed of the blender so the depth of the vortex is to the hub of the blender blade
assembly.
• Add on-the fly additives then the crosslinker and start the timer.
• Continuously stir the fluid at a moderate rate until you observe the fluid’s viscosity has
increased sufficiently to close the vortex. Check the fluid for lipping characteristics by tilting
the sample slowly until the fluid reaches the top edge of the container. Carefully tilt the
container farther, allowing the fluid to slowly fall out of the container. The fluid will start to
creep over the edge and pull back when tilted back. If the fluid has any crosslink
characteristics, it will tend to hang, or lip.
• Continue to circulate the fluid until the desired lipping characteristics are achieved then stop
the timer.
• The time determined from Step 5 above is the crosslink time as determined by the Lip Test.
• Record time on QC form.
Gel emulsion tendency test
In order to test gel emulsion tendency it is required to mix 50 ml broken gel and 50 ml crude and
monitor separation in hot water bath. In one hour should separate 90%.
Proppant settling test
Proppant settling tests are useful to monitor fluid gel viscosity breakback and proppant settling
properties, which correlate closely with the breaking of the crosslinked viscosity. These data can be
used for comparison with service company viscosity break data, correlation of proppant settling with
fracture closure times and required shut-in times. Proppant settling tests are conveniently run in 50
ml graduate cylinders placed in a constant temperature water bath. Proppant settling is monitored
by observing the level of the top of the settling proppant. The settling time is taken as the time,
during static settling, when proppant settling is nearly complete and the top of the settling proppant
column appears to be nearly stationary. Percent of proppant is settled and monitored during time at
reservoir temperature. Minimum time for settling is equal to pumping time.
Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations, API RP 56, First
Edition, March 1988.
Recommend Practices for Testing High-Strength Proppants Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations,
API RP 60, First Edition, February 1989.
11.7.2 Safety Considerations
Hydraulic fracturing must be carried out with a great attention to safety. Special attention will be
given to pre-job safety meetings.
Safety considerations should be discussed in details. Everyone should know where to go in the event
of a disaster. Everyone needs to know the maximum operating pressure. The supervisor should count
the people at the location.
The major purpose of this meeting is that each individual needs to know his part, his responsibility,
what to do during the job.
The most important points for the safe treatment of fracturing operation are:
• Consider all safety rules according to Government and OMV Petrom documents and
standards
• Designate a gathering area in the event of a disaster.
• Establish a maximum treating pressure.
• Each person should be assigned a specific responsibility.
• Assign leadership (one person in charge from the oil company and one from the service
company).
• The oil company representative should point out the persons responsible for each task.
• Make sure a good communication network is set up. Have alternate visual commands.
• Have a fire extinguisher placed on the ground for easy access.
• Have two individuals given the responsibility of transporting injured persons to the nearest
clinic/hospital.
• Have a designated vehicle set aside for transporting injured personnel.
• Do a complete head count of all personnel on location.
• Set up a gathering area in case an accident occurs.
11.7.3 Personnel
Properly trained personnel are the keys to success. The wellsite personnel must understand the
fundamentals of the stimulation technique that will be used and must know how to use the
equipment, software and techniques.
The fracturing contractor shall ensure the availability of the following:
1. Organogram of all contractor personnel on call-out.
2. Personnel CVs submitted and qualifications as per contract.
3. HSE documents submitted as per contract.
4. All personnel to be aware of the hazards of toxic chemicals, emergency procedures, designated
first aider on site.
5. Personnel to be aware of emergency procedures and contact numbers.
6. All personnel to comply with s training course requirements for contractors.
7. Suitable (dry chemical type) fire extinguishers to be available on site.
8. Journey management system in place.
9. Set up refreshment program for personnel who are in the sun all day (if applicable).
10. Check all personnel are fit and aware of any safety hazards (personal jewelery such as rings,
slippery surfaces on gel tanks, etc.).
11. Ensure tidiness of site at all times during rig-up and rig-down operations.
Appendix 11 - A Surface Equipment for Fracturing (Various service

companies).
Baker
Table 11-13 Baker Pumps (API Units)
Table 11-14 Baker Pumps (SI Units)
Table 11-15 Baker Blenders (API Unit)
Table 11-16 Baker Blenders (SI Unit)
Appendix 11 - B Commercial fracturing fluid systems

Table 11-17 Commercial Fracturing fluid system
Appendix 11 - C Proppant Specifications and characteristics

Table 11-18 Proppant specification and characteristics
Appendix 11 - D Fracture Stimulation Checklist
Fracture Stimulation Supervision Checklist

Well Name: Date:
I. Equipment Needed on Job Site
Oil company workover procedure with data sheet containing the reservoir properties, such as
1.
bottomhole pressure, porosity, permeability, temperature
2. Service company stimulation recommendation
3. Logs with perforations and collars premarked
4. Tank strap
5. Sand sieves
6. Service company reference tables
7. Containers for samples
8. Quality Control Forms
9. Hardhead and steel-toed boots
10. Farm 35 or equivalent viscometer or availability of same from service company
Water test equipment (or obtain from the service company)
a) pH meter or paper,
b) Thermometer,
c) Iron test kit,
11.
d) Phosphate test kit,
e) Total dissolved solids tester,
f) Reducing agent tester, and
g) Chloride test kit.
II. The Day Before the Job
Tanks
Are there enough tanks on the location to store all fluids? Figure that 50 bbl/tank will be
1.
unpumpable. Recommend at least 10% extra base gel on location.
2. Have the tanks been cleaned prior to the job?
Does the water have the proper amounts of potassium chloride, sodium chloride, and other
3.
compounds?
4. Are all of the tanks full? Get on the tanks yourself—do not take anyone's word!
Where did the water come from? Does it appear to be clean? Check each tank yourself. Do
5.
not pump dirty fluid down a well.
Check the valves on the tanks to ensure that they are not leaking. If a valve has a trickle leak,
6. replace it before the next job. If the tank has a large leak, consider having the tanks switched
out prior to any pumping.
7. Conduct pre-gel quality control on frac fluid.
8. Fill out Quality Control Tables
Sand Storage
Get on top of the sand storage unit yourself and see if they contain enough proppant to do
1.
the job.
2. Is the proppant in ouch compartment the correct size?
3. Check the proppant for fines. Sieve samples from each compartment.
Are you using the correct proppant?
4. a) Take samples and establish if the proppant is the proper quality (i.e., Ottawa, Brady,
Interprop, etc.).
Fracture Stimulation Supervision Checklist (Continued)

Well Name: Date:
Find the Service Company Treater and/or Treatment Supervisor
1. Go over sand and fluid schedules with him.
2. Are the proper additives going to be on the location?
Is a standby blender going to be on location and in position to be usable? A standby is
3.
needed on treatments with pump time exceeding 1 hour.
4. Make sure a sand densimeter is going to be available on the job.
If the job is going to take more than 4 or 5 hours pumping time, request that a service
5. company mechanic be on the location to repair any equipment that malfunctions. Also
request an electronic technician to repair electrical problems on jobs with long pump times.
6. Go over rig-up checklist with service company representative.
Arrange for testing of all gelled fluids and test crosslink time if applicable. (Quality Control
7.
Table 1)
Establish rapport with frac treater and give the person guidelines on what you expect before,
8.
during and after the treatment.
Establish maximum treating pressure and calculate surface treating pressure with service
9.
company function charts.
III. Just Before the Job
1. Go over sand and fluid schedules. Receive and discuss Quality Control Tables
Specify whether he will be recording volumes in clean or dirty volumes. Clean volumes are
fluid volumes with no sand. Dirty volumes are the slurry volumes. Also check to see if the
volumes will be displayed in barrels or gallons.
Dirty volume, bbl. - Clean volume, bbl. + (lb. sand x 0.00109)
- bbl. * ( lb. x 0.00109)
2.
- bbl.
or
Dirty volume, gal - Clean volume, gal + (lb. sand x 0.0456)
- gal + ( lb. x 0.0456)
- gal.
3. Finalize the pumping schedule.
Get on top of the tanks yourself and gauge all frac tanks using a tank strap. Have the treater
present. Having the treater gauge the tanks with you will prevent any disagreements about
4.
fluid volumes after the job is finished. This stop should be completed only after all tanks
have been rolled and viscosified. Finalize volumes table.
Set up a system with the treater for numbering the tanks in the order that they will be
5.
drained. This helps keep track of the fluid volumes during the job.
Fill in the Frac Tank Tracking Chart (Table 6). This will help you keep track of how much fluid
6.
is left at any point during the job.
Arrange with the treater to have someone knowledgeable and dependable on top of the frac
7. tanks and the sand storage units. He or she should be there all the time that the job is being
pumped to insure a smooth uninterrupted flow of the proposed pumping schedule (Table 2).
Fracture Stimulation Supervision Checklist (continued)

Well Name: Date:
Impress upon the treater the adverse consequences if the pumps lose prime during the job
because the tanks were sucked too low. When the fluid level in the frac tank drops below
the suction valve, air is sucked into the pumps, causing the blender pumps to lose prime. The
8.
sand density goes extremely high and the rate has to be reduced. The sand density then
tends to drop very low while the pumps regain prime. This chaos normally takes 5-10 mins.
to correct—10 mins, is a lot of fluid at 50 bbl./min.
Get on top of the sand storage unit with the treater and gauge the volume of proppant in
9. each compartment. Remember to check any 100 mesh sand that is being pumped in the pad
as a fluid loss agent.
Set up a system with the treater on numbering the sand storage unit compartments in the
10.
order they will be pumped.
Complete the Proppant Tracking Chart. This will help you keep track of how much proppant
11.
is left at any point during the job.
Complete the Crosslinker Tracking Chart. This will help you keep track of how much
12.
crosslinker is left at any point during the job.
Complete the Breaker Tracking Chart. This will help you keep track of how much breaker is
13.
left at any point during the job.
Complete the Fluid Loss Additive Tracking Chart. This will help you keep track of how much
14.
fluid loss additive is left at any point during the job.
Find the Service Company Field Chemist or District Engineer
Have the chemist complete for each tank of gel. This is in addition to your own quality
1. control work. For legal and other reasons, always have the service company confirm your
tests—you might have erred!
Check with the chemist to find which additives (such as cross-linkers, fluid loss additives, and
2.
breakers) will be added on the fly during the job
3. Check with the chemist to see that all tanks have been premixed with the necessary additives.
If running a crosslinked gel, catch a sample of gel from each tank and add the appropriate
4.
amount of crosslinker to see if the gel crosslinks.
Equipment
1. Is all equipment fueled up, and is there enough fuel on the location to complete the job?
2. Were all pumps and lines flushed with clean water before the job started?
3. Are all injection lines staked down?
4. Is a standby blender rigged up or in an immediately usable position?
Is the blender located close enough to each tank so that sucking the fluid at a high rate will
5.
not be a problem?
To be assured of sufficient suction between the blender and the tanks, you should have 1
6. suction hose per 10 bpm for thin fluids and for thick fluids use 1 suction hose per 5 bpm. For
example, a 40 bpm rate would require 8 suction hoses for 60# viscous gel.
Safety Equipment Checklist
Locate pumping trucks and tanks cross wind and a reasonable feet from the well. Head all
1.
vehicles away from the well and keep access roads clear.
Each discharge line should have a full swing at the well and at the truck manifold and be
2.
staked at each end. Additional staking should be based on judgment.
3. Install check valves in each discharge linear as near wellhead as possible.
No one should stand on or near discharge lines under pressure and never pass lines under
4.
trucks or other equipment.
Fracture Stimulation Supervision Checklist (continued)

Well Name: Date:
Safety Equipment Checklist
Pressure test discharge lines from pump to well at 70 bar (1000±) psi greater than maximum
5. treating pressure.
5b. Inspect wellhead for any low pressure connections that may have inadvertently been added
during well servicing.
6. Bleed off lines should be staked and in a safe direction (downwind, downhill, and/or to a pit).
7. Insure that adequate firefighting equipment is in good working condition strategically
located.
8. Conduct pumping operation in daylight. Do not pump during electrical or severe dust storms.
9. All personnel and equipment not necessary to the operation should be moved to a point at
least 150 feet from well.
10. If flammable materials (crude oil. diesel, xylene, methanol, etc.) are pumped, all persons
within at least 150 feet from the well should remove matches, lighters, and cigarettes from
their pockets.
11. Prior to pumping, all company and contract supervisors and crew should meet to discuss job
procedures, work signals, hazards, and safety precautions. At this time, an emergency
assembly area should be designated in an upwind direction from well. Also, a head count
and a buddy system should be established so that all personnel can be accounted for.
12. If pumping flammable material, have the service company wrap all discharge hoses from the
blender to the pump trucks with canvas or other material. This will negate spraying of
flammable material should the hoses leak or burst.
List of Figures
Figure 11-1 Fracturing Alter Flow Patterns,
Figure 11-2 Performance gap evaluation,
Figure 11-3 Candidate selection workflow,
Figure 11-4 Individual Zone/Well Evaluation for fracturing,
Figure 11-5 Spurt valuation,
Figure 11-6 Idealized bottomhole pressure during fracturing job,
Figure 11-7 Well lithology, permeability/thickness product and cumulative hydrocarbon in place,
Figure 11-8 Well lithology and mechanical properties distribution,
Figure 11-9 Fracturing Fluid Selection Workflow,
Figure 11-10 Proppant selection workflow,
Figure 11-11 Step Rate Test,
Figure 11-12 Rate Step Down Test procedure,
Figure 11-13 Improper and proper design of RSDT,
Figure 11-14 Perforation friction dominates (left side) and near-wellbore friction dominates (right
side)Ref 1,
Figure 11-15 Step Rate and Step Down test sequences,
Figure 11-16 Typical Micro test Data*,
Figure 11-17 Typical Micro test Data,
Figure 11-18 HDF data preparation workflow,
Figure 11-19 SQRT MiniFrac data analysis,
Figure 11-20 G-Function Plot for MiniFrac data analysis,
Figure 11-21 Horner plot for MiniFrac data analysis,
Figure 11-22 MiniFrac Log-Log Diagnostic plot,
Figure 11-23 General Workflow for Well Fracturing Design Process,
Figure 11-24 Full 3D model grid,
Figure 11-25 Lumped p-3D model,
Figure 11-26 Fracture propagation simulated p-3D lumped model,
Figure 11-27 Fracture modeling by FracCADE Cell Based p-3D model,
Figure 11-28 The general workflow of HDF design model selection,
Figure 11-29 Shut-in Pressure Decline and Observed Net Pressure (ONP),
Figure 11-30 Net-pressure plots showing how to correct for friction in real-time,
Figure 11-31 Methodology for matching observed and model net pressure,
Figure 11-32 Matching of observing and modeled fracture net pressure (OMV Petrom well),
Figure 11-33 Nolte-Smith net pressure interpretation,
Figure 11-34 Simulated Fracture propagation,
Figure 11-35 Fracture geometry correlated with log.,
Figure 11-36 Fracture optimization workflow,
Figure 11-37 Mechanism of Acid Fracturing,
Figure 11-38 Schematic of Wide Spread Etched Ridges (WISPER) technology of acid fracturing,
Figure 11-39 Acid Frac vs. HDF,
Figure 11-40 Acid Fracturing Best Practice Workflow,
Figure 11-41 Acid fracturing workflow for estimating required injecting volume of the fluid,
Figure 11-42 Surface facility and site layout for HDF (off-shore well),
Figure 11-43 Surface facility and site layout for acid frac( off-shore well ),
Figure 11-44 Real technical setup on boat and site layout for acid frac(off-shore well ),
Figure 11-45 Surface facility and site layout for HDF (on-shore well),
Figure 11-46 Real technical setup for HDF (on-shore well),
Figure 11-47 Surface equipment and site layout for Acid Fracturing (on-shore well),
Figure 11-48 Fracture geometry and propagation changes,
Figure 11-49 Job execution data – Design versus recorded data,
Figure 11-50 Job execution data – Main frac design versus recorded data,
Figure 11-51 Command and control system during HDF job execution,
Figure 11-52 Multi-zone multi stage fractured well completion (Open hole with liner),
Figure 11-53 Well log correlated with packer and port placement,
Figure 11-54 Recompleted (plugged and fractured) vertical well with one open interval,
Figure 11-55 Recompleted (plugged and fractured) vertical well with two or more open intervals,
Figure 11-56 Final well completion after multistage fracturing,
Figure 11-57 Operation Sequences of multistage fracturing using open-hole packer,
Figure 11-58 Unbroken and broken fluid sample,
Figure 11-59 Do not trash materials on site.
List of Tables
Table 11-1 Proppant pack damage from fracturing fluids,
Table 11-2 General guideline based on ranges of FEE component values,
Table 11-3 Basic treatment design using viscous fingering,
Table 11-4 Well Fracturing Planning Schedule,
Table 11-5 Specifications of surface equipment,
Table 11-6 Fracturing fluids summary,
Table 11-7 Crosslinked water-based fracturing fluids,
Table 11-8 Summary of the common used additives,
Table 11-9 Conditions for breakers application,
Table 11-10 Additives vs. Viscosity,
Table 11-11 Fracturing sand characteristics,
Table 11-12 Water Quality Standard Requirements,
Table 11-13 Baker Pumps (API Units),
Table 11-14 Baker Pumps (SI Units),
Table 11-15 Baker Blenders (API Unit),
Table 11-16 Baker Blenders (SI Unit),
Table 11-17 Commercial Fracturing fluid system,
Table 11-18 Proppant specification and characteristics,
References
1. OMV Petrom Internal Documents

• Presentation of HDF operation (Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments)
• Acid Frac overview presentation (Acid fracturing design)
• Best practices to avoid screenout in tough carbonate reservoirs (Best practices to
avoid screenout in propped fracturing by using SDT)
• HDF Fluid Systems Specifications in Petrom OMV/ Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments -
QA QC
• Proppant and Additives Specifications for HDF applied in OMV Petrom
• Selection Criteria Between Acid Frac and Propped Fracturing
• HDF Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report LV03
• HDF Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report Lv10 Lebada
• HDF Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report 517 Burcioaia
• HDF Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report 4289 Slavuta
• Acid Frac Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV / 60 Pescarus job execution
• Acid Frac Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report 5025 Bibesti
• Acid Frac Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report 3016 Bulbucenii
• Acid Frac Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report 60 Pescarus
• Acid Frac Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report 2360 Glogoveanu
• Quality Assurance and Checks for HDF used in OMV Petrom
2. Abou-Sayed, I.S., Schueler, S., Ehrl, E. and Hendricks, W.: “Multiple Hydraulic Fracture
Stimulation in a Deep Horizontal Tight Gas Well,” paper SPE 30532, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October 22–25, 1995).
3. Chambers, M.R., Mueller, M.M. and Grossmann, A.: “Well Completion Design and Operations
for a Deep Horizontal Well with Multiple Fractures,” paper SPE 30417, presented at the
Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland (September 5–8, 1995).
4. Chen, Z. and Economides, M.J.: “The Effect of Near- Wellbore Fracture Geometry on Fracture
Execution and Post-Treatment Production of Deviated and Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE
39425, presented at the SPE International Formation Damage Control Conference, Lafayette,
Louisiana, USA (February 18–19, 1998)
5. Cinco-Ley, H. and Meng, H.Z.: “Pressure Transient Analysis of Wells with Finite Conductivity
Vertical Fractures in Double Porosity Reservoirs,” SPE 18172, (October 2–5, 1988).
6. Clifton, R.J. and Wang, J-J.: “Multiple Fluids, Proppant Transport, and Thermal Effects in
Three- Dimensional Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing,” paper SPE 18198, presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA (October 2–5, 1988).
7. Dowell Schlumberger: “Proppant selection guide”.
8. Economides, J. Michael, Nolte, G. Kenneth et al., “Reservoir stimulation”, Schlumberger
educational services, 1987.
9. Economides Michael J. , Kenneth G. Nolte: Reservoir Stimulation (3rd Edition)
10. Ely, J.W.: Stimulation Treatment Handbook, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, PennWell Publishing Co.
(1985).
11. Enhanced Fracture Entry Friction Analysis of the Rate Step-down Test, SPE 106058, Enhanced
Fracture Entry Friction Analysis of the Rate Step-down Test
12. Fracturing, Monograph Series, Richardson, Texas, USA, Society of Petroleum Engineers
(1989).
13. Gidley, J.L., Holditch, S.A., Nierode, D.E. and Veatch, R.W. Jr.: Recent Advances in Hydraulic
14. Gulbis, J.: “Dynamic Fluid Loss Study of Fracturing Fluid,” paper CIM 82-33-18, presented at
the 33rd Annual Technical Meeting of Petroleum Society of CIM (1982).
15. Howard. G.C., and Fast, C.R., “Hydraulic fracturing”, Mono. Ser. 2, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson, Texas, 1970.
16. Nordgren, R.P., “Propagation of vertical fracture”, SPEJ, pp. 306-314, August 1972.
17. Khristianovich, S.A., and Zheltov, Y.P., “Formation of vertical fractures by means of highly
viscous liquid”, Proc., Fourth World petroleum Congress, Sec.II, pp. 579-586, 1955.
18. Kalfayan L., Production Enhancement With Acid Stimulation, 2008
19. Mayerhofer, M.J., Economides, M. J., and Nolte, K.G., “An experimental and fundamental
interpretation of filter cake fracturing fluid loss”, SPE paper 22873, 1987.
20. Nolte, K.G., and Smith, M.B., “ Interpretation of fracturing pressures”, JPT, pp. 1767-1775,
September 198
21. Nolte, K.G., Maniere, J.L. and Owens, K.A.: “After- Closure Analysis of Fracture Calibration
Tests,” r SPE 38676, October 5–8, 1997
22. Penny, G.S., “ An investigation of the effects of fracturing fluids upon the conductivity of
proppants”, Final report STIM-LAB, Duncan OK, 1988.
23. Penny, G.S., “An investigation of the effects of fracturing fluids upon the conductivity of
proppants”, Final report STIM-LAB, Duncan OK, 1986.
24. Perkins, T.K., and Kern, L.R., “Widths of hydraulic fracture”, JPT, pp. 937-949, September
1961.
25. Recommended Practice for Standard Procedures for Evaluation of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids
(RP 39), second edition, Dallas, Texas, USA, American Petroleum Institute (1983).
26. Recommended Practices for Testing High Strength Proppants Used in Hydraulic Fracturing
Operations (API RP 60), American Petroleum
27. Institute, Washington, D.C. (1989).Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in
Hydraulic Fracturing Operations (RP 56), first edition, Dallas, Texas, USA, American Petroleum
Institute (1983).
28. Smith, J.E., “Design of hydraulic fracture treatments”, SPE 1286.
29. Prats, M., “Effect of vertical fractures on reservoir behavior-incompressible fluid case”, SPEJ,
pp. 105-118, June 1961.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 12-1

12. ZONAL ISOLATION ........................................................................................................................ 12-3
12.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 12-3
12.2 Reasons and Objectives for Zonal Isolation ....................................................................... 12-4
12.3 Zonal Isolation Workflow ................................................................................................... 12-6
12.4 Remedial Cementing Technology ..................................................................................... 12--6
12.4.1 Squeeze Cementing under Pressure below Formation Fracturing Pressure ............. 12-8
12.4.2 Factors Impacting on Selection of Placement Techniques for Remedial Cementing .......
................................................................................................................................ 12-12
12.4.3 Best Practices for Design Cement Slurry .................................................................. 12-12
12.5 Remedial Cementing Placement Techniques .................................................................. 12-13
12.5.1 Cementing Plugs ....................................................................................................... 12-13
12.5.2 Technology Workflow for Cement Plug Placement ................................................. 12-16
12.5.3 Squeeze Cementing Placement Techniques ............................................................ 12-18
12.5.4 Pumping Techniques ................................................................................................ 12-23
12.5.5 Squeeze Cementing Placement Techniques ............................................................ 12-28
12.6 Materials Used for Remedial Cementing ......................................................................... 12-30
12.6.1 Cement Types (Standard and Special Types) ........................................................... 12-30
12.6.2 Foamed Cement ....................................................................................................... 12-33
12.6.3 Cement Additives ..................................................................................................... 12-33
12.6.4 Spacers and Washes ................................................................................................. 12-35
12.6.5 Laboratory Procedure for Testing Cement, Slurry, Foamed Cement....................... 12-36
12.7 Models for Planning and Designing Remedial Cementing Jobs in OMV Petrom............. 12-37
12.7.1 Chemical Methods for Water Control ...................................................................... 12-38
12.8 Downhole Equipment for Remedial Cementing .............................................................. 12-39
12.8.1 Squeeze Cementing Tools ........................................................................................ 12-41
12.8.2 Cement Retainers ..................................................................................................... 12-42
12.8.3 Squeeze Packers (Retrievable Packers) .................................................................... 12-44
12.8.4 Drillable Bridge plug ................................................................................................. 12-44
12.9 Surface Equipment for Remedial Cementing .................................................................. 12-46
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.9.1 Mixing Equipment..................................................................................................... 12-47

12.9.2 Pumping Equipment ................................................................................................. 12-48
12.10 Quality Assurance and Safety Requirements for Remedial Cementing........................... 12-49
12.10.1 Remedial Cementing Quality Control and Job Evaluation ........................................ 12-49
Appendix 12 - A Cement Retainers and Bridge Plugs Specifications (used in OMV Petrom) .... 12-53
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. 12-56
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 12-57
References .................................................................................................................................. 12-58
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 12. ZONAL ISOLATION

1. Take representative samples for laboratory testing prior to pumping the cement.
If the reservoir pressure is low and there is high possibility to lose circulation of the cement
2.
slurry during the job, use lightweight cement in consultancy with service company.
The density of cement slurry must be within narrow range (+- several %) of the density
3.
designed in the laboratory.
Assure that the cement is of the correct weight, that all additives are added correctly and
4.
the pump rates follow the predesigned schedule.
Assure that all cement additives, designed for the job, are used during cement operation.
5.
Check the list of additives before and after cement operation.
6. Determine accurate bottom-hole temperature and bottom-hole circulating temperature.
The casing and tubing string should be internally clean as much as possible (free of rust,
7.
paraffin, scale, perforation burrs, etc.).
Whenever possible, the bridge plug should be pressure tested after it has been set. This will
require a packer in the string to be set just above the bridge plug for the test. When there is
8.
no packer, or a drillable retainer is used, the bridge plug cannot be isolated for a pressure
test.
Perform Negative Pressure Test as the universally recognized technique for confirming
whether the cement in place will hold the formation fluids under producing conditions. It
consists of applying a negative differential pressure on the face of the plugged perforations.
9. The following steps accomplish this:
• Circulating a light fluid (i.e., through a concentric pipe)
• Swabbing the well
• Running a dry test
Use of the temperature survey to determine the top of cement bond.
10.
If acidizing or fracturing operations are going to be conducted and if there is possibility that
11. channeling, fracturing, or etching occur, then it is necessary (if possible at all) to utilize
cements that will approach the strength of the formations which are being isolated.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 12. ZONAL ISOLATION
No. Not Recommended at All

1.
To use foam cement to accomplish zonal isolation.
2. To squeeze perforated interval above fracture pressure which lead to insufficient zonal
isolation what could cause serious problem if the well has to be fractured later on.
3. To execute Positive Pressure Test as a method to diagnose a gross failure of the squeeze
treatment above the formation fracturing pressure.
4. To start pumping the cement before obtaining representative samples for laboratory
testing.
5.
To use blowout preventer (BOP) if it is not tested to the maximum expected pressure.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.1 Introduction
The flow of fluids along the cement sheath is invariably an undesirable occurrence. For a producing
well, this is manifested either by the loss of reservoir fluids through crossflow along the cement
sheath, or by the influx of underground fluids from other formations into the active layer. For an
injector, the injected fluids may escape into unintended layers through the cement sheath. During
hydraulic fracturing, escape of fluids through an imperfect cement sheath may result in either
undesirable fracture-height migration or screenout of the intended fracture in the targeted
formation because of the fracturing fluid loss.
Almost all oil or gas reservoirs produce water. In mature or old fields which are typical for OMV
Petrom, the most of produced fluid is water, with oil or gas representing a few percent of total
production. A continuous increase in water production is thus a normal behavior in the lifetime of a
field.
Water flow paths in the reservoir, especially close to the wellbore, are often irregular, by-passing
large hydrocarbon saturated zones and inducing undesirable high water-cut levels. In such situations,
we are dealing with "bad" undesirable water, as opposed to "good" water produced under normal
conditions.
Undesired water production is one of the major technical, environmental, and economical problems
associated with oil and gas production. This water production can limit the productive life of the oil
and gas wells and can cause severe problems including corrosion of tubular, fines migration, and
hydrostatic loading. Also, upward gas flow or “gas migration” through and along the cement sheath
has received particular attention and often presents a problem that should be treated
Water shut off/zonal isolation (plugging of high water cut zone and perforating new intervals)
represents around 30-50% of the all workover operations in OMV Petrom to recomplete well and
provide continuation of production with lower water and gas cut.
Gas shut off is rarely performed and estimated frequency, based on collected statistical data, is
around 5%.
There is probably nothing more critical to the completion of a well, or in fact, stimulation of a well
than having good zonal isolation. Shortchanging in the quality of the cement and the cement/casing
or cement/formation bonds on primary cementing can cost huge sums of money in later stages of
the well, and could not be justified.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.2 Reasons and Objectives for Zonal Isolation
Isolate formation intervals

• Temporarily abandon production zone to test other intervals.
• Permanently abandon nonproductive zones.
• Resolve problem of unwanted water and gas production.
• Seal off lost-circulation zones opened during cementing or completion.
• Seal off depleted zones from production intervals in multizone completions (Figure 12-1).
• Stop lost circulation in open hole during drilling.
Figure 12-1 Depleted zone abandonment
Alter formation characteristics

Reduce the producing gas/oil ratio (GOR) by isolating the gas zones from adjacent oil intervals:
• Gas coning (Figure 12-2a): When the flowing pressure gradients become large enough to
overcome the gravitational forces, gas will form an unstable cone, which advances into
the wellbore. Coning tendencies are inversely proportional to density difference and
directly proportional to viscosity. The density difference between gas and oil is normally
larger than the density difference between water and oil.
• Gas Fingering: Preferential flow of gas through high permeability layers.
In stratified reservoirs, premature fingering of gas may occur with high pressure
drawdown at the wellbore, casing leaks, cement bond failure, natural or induced
fractures communicating with gas zone, or acidizing into gas zone. Fingering is more
prevalent in reservoirs where permeability varies appreciably between zones (Figure
12-2b).
• Moving of the G/O contact in solution gas reservoir due to reservoir depletion (Figure
12-2c).
Figure 12-2 a) Gas Coning; b) Gas Fingering; c) Moving G/O contact
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Reduce water-oil ratio.

• Oil/water contact moving up
Typically, this is associated with limited vertical permeability, usually less than 1 mD.
This problem can be considered as a subset of coning, but the coning tendency is so low that
near-wellbore shut-off can be effective (Figure 12-3).
• Water Coning (Figure 12-4a)
Water coning problem in vertical wells is defined as vertical movement of water across
bedding planes in a producing formation.
• High-permeability layer With/ Without crossflow (Figure 12-4b)
With crossflow: Water crossflow can occur in high –permeability layers that are not isolated
by impermeable barriers.
There is no barrier to stop crossflow in the reservoir and that is difference in comparison
with the water-out without crossflow.
Without crossflow: A common problem with multilayer production occurs when high –
permeability zone with a flow barrier (such as a shale bed) above and below is watered out
(“FINGERING”). The water source may be from an active aquifer or a waterflood injection
well.
Figure 12-3 Moving oil/water contact
Figure 12-4 a) Water coning; b) Water fingering
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.3 Zonal Isolation Workflow
Figure 12-5 Zonal isolation Workflow
Zonal isolation methods:
• Squeeze cementing,
• Plug cementing,
• Selective cementing,
• Mechanically isolating by bridge plug,
• Mechanically isolating by retrievable packer,
• Mechanically isolating by cement plug,
• Mechanically isolating by sand plug, and
• Chemically isolating.
Mechanical tolls for zonal isolation are covered in Chapter 5 (Well Recompletion).
12.4 Remedial Cementing Technology
Before any remedial application, the existing downhole conditions, the cause and magnitude of the
problem, and the expected results from the application must be determined. Then the necessary
planning, design, and placement procedures can be engineered to match downhole conditions and
enable the operation to be completed. Whenever downhole problems, wellbore conditions, and
expected results cannot be defined or controlled, time and money will be wasted and the repair will
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
probably be unsuccessful. In addition, more well damage or total well loss may occur if the wrong
decisions are made.
Remedial cementing operations consist of two broad categories: plug cementing and squeeze
cementing.
Cement plug
The process of setting a cement plug involves the placement of a relatively small amount of cement
slurry an open or inside casing. Cement plug is a volume of cement designed to fill a length casing or
openhole and to seal vertical fluid movement.
Cement plugs are usually placed to:
• Abandon lower depleted zones on cased hole.

• Plug and abandon an entire well.
• Provide a kick off point sidetrack drilling operation.
• To provide a seal for open hole testing.
• To cure a lost circulation zone .
There are three common techniques for placing cement plugs:
• Balanced-plug method,
• Dump-bailer method, and
• Two-plug method.
Squeeze cementing is defined as the process of forcing cement slurry, under pressure, through holes
or splits in the casing/wellbore annular space. When the slurry is forced against a permeable
formation, the solid particles filter out on the formation face as the aqueous phase (cement filtrate
enters the formation matrix). A properly designed squeeze job causes the resulting cement filter cake
to fill the opening(s) between the formation and the casing. Upon curing, the cake forms a nearly
impenetrable solid. In cases where the slurry is placed into a fractured interval, the cement solids
might cause a filter cake on the fracture face and/or bridge the fracture.
Normally, the slurry injection is performed through casing perforations. There are two different
squeezes can be performed:
• Low-pressure squeeze: The bottomhole treating pressure is maintained below the formation
fracturing pressure.
• High-pressure squeeze: The bottomhole treating pressure exceeds the formation fracturing
pressure.
Within these two classes, there are two basic techniques (the Bradenhead (no tool) squeeze and the
squeeze tool technique) and tree pumping methods (the running squeeze, staged squeeze and the
hesitation squeeze). Each of these classifications and techniques is explained in the sections below.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
REMEDIAL
CEMENTING
Squeeze Cementing Plug Cementing
Low-pressure High-pressure
squeeze squeeze Placement Techniques
P < Pfrac P > Pfrac
Balanced plug Dump Bailer Two-plug
No Tool Squeeze Tool

Placement Techniques Placement Techniques
Retrievable Drillable
Bradenhead Bullhead Squeeze Cement
Packer Retainer
Pumping Methods
Continuous Staged Hesitated
Figure 12-6 WF Remedial cementing classification
12.4.1 Squeeze Cementing under Pressure below Formation Fracturing Pressure
Low-Pressure Squeeze
The aim of this operation is to fill the perforation cavities and interconnected voids with dehydrated
cement. The volume of cement is usually small, because no slurry is actually pumped into the
formation. Precise control of hydrostatic pressure of the cement column is essential, because
excessive pressure could result in formation breakdown.
With the development of controlled fluid loss cements and retrievable packers, the low-pressure
method has become the most efficient technique of squeeze cementing (Figure 12-7).
Low pressure, where the formation- is not broken down, is illustrated by the following equation:
𝑃𝑠 + 𝑃ℎ < 𝑃𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐 (12-1)
Where:
Ps - Surface pressure, psi
Ph - Hydrostatic pressure of all fluids, psi
Pfrac (BHTP) - Fracture pressure (Bottomhole treating pressure), psi.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Figure 12-7 Low pressure squeezing
With this technique, formation breakdown is avoided and pressure achieved by shutting down or
hesitating during the squeeze process. In this hesitation method, the cement is placed in a single
stage, but in alternate pumping and waiting periods. The controlled fluid loss properties of the slurry
cause filter cake to collect against the formation or inside the perforations while the parent slurry
remains in a fluid state inside the casing.
In low-pressure squeezes, it is essential that perforations and channels are clear of mud or other
solids. If the well has been producing, such openings may already be free of obstructions; however,
for newly completed wells, it may be necessary to clean the perforations before performing the
squeeze job.
Properly designed slurry will leave only a small node of cement filter cake inside the casing.
Improperly designed systems can result in excessive development of cement filter cake. This can
result in a complete bridging of the inside of the casing, with loss of pressure transmission to the
formation, and insufficient contact of the cement filter cake with the formation.
A low-pressure squeeze should be run whenever possible since this technique gives has the highest
success rate. The low-pressure squeeze requires only a small amount of cement slurry, while the
high-pressure technique usually involves a larger volume of slurry.
Squeezing low-pressure fractured zones
Low-pressure fractured zones are often difficult to squeeze because conditions are nearly always
considerably above the BHTR. This is shown by the equation:
𝑃𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐 ≪ 𝑃𝑠 + 𝑃 ℎ − 𝑃𝑓 (12-2)
Where:
Pfrac-fracture pressure, bar (psi)
Ps - Surface pressure, bar (psi)
Ph - Hydrostatic pressure of all fluids, bar (psi)
Pf - Friction pressure, bar (psi).
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Usually, more than one stage of cement is required. It is extremely important to squeeze with the
least possible standing pressure.
In order to control the process properly, a packer should be used and the best is to load backside
with clear fluid and maintain about 70 bar (1000 psi). Pump into the formation to establish an
injection pressure. As soon as all the cement slurry is properly mixed, open the valve to the
displacement tank and let the displacement flow by gravity into the tubing until flow almost stops.
Then start pumping very slowly.
Perhaps a better approach than over displacing cement would be to allow the slurry to gravitate
down the tubing until some amount of displacement fluid is in the tubing behind the slurry. The
surface valve between the pump and tubing could be closed, slowing the fall of slurry. The valve
could be opened to allow more displacement fluid. Once cement is over displaced, the only thing
that is certain is that another squeeze will have to be performed.
Return in four to six hours for another stage. A hesitation type squeeze (i.e., an alternate hesitation
and pumping where the hesitation is to encourage cement filter-cake buildup) will probably be
required to attain squeeze pressure. The first hesitation probably will not decrease the bleed-off
rate. At this point in the squeeze, it becomes an art rather than a science. Continue to alternately
pump and hesitate until pressure bleed-off rate decreases and until a standing pressure is finally
attained. The amount of slurry to pump and the hesitation time is a matter of judgment. Hold a
standing pressure for about five minutes (varies with conditions) then flow back. Pressure-up to the
original standing pressure and hold for another five minutes. Flow back, then unseat the packer and
reverse out the excess cement. Be careful not to exceed the squeeze pressure when reversing.
Zones taking fluid on a vacuum are probably naturally fractured or have extremely high permeability.
Fractures may rake cement indefinitely with hesitations during the squeeze process, causing nominal
pressure buildups, while extremely high permeability may require very few hesitations before a
cement filter cake has been formed.
Figure 12-8 Squeezing fractured zones
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
High-Pressure Squeeze
In some cases, a low-pressure squeeze of the perforations will not accomplish the objective of the
job. The channels behind the casing might not be directly connected to the perforations. Small cracks
or micro-annuli that may allow flow of gas do not allow the passage of cement slurry. In such cases,
these channels must be enlarged to accept a viscous solids-carrying fluid. In addition, many low
pressure operations cannot be performed if it is impossible to remove plugging fluids, or debris, from
ahead of the cement slurry or inside the perforations.
Placement of the cement slurry behind the casing is accomplished by breaking down the formation at
or close to the perforations (Figure 12-9). Fluids ahead of the slurry are displaced in the fractures,
allowing the slurry to fill the desired spaces. Further application of pressure dehydrates the slurry
against the formation walls, leaving all channels (from fractures to perforations) filled with cement
cake.
Figure 12-9 Probable result of high-pressure cement squeeze job
However, during a high-pressure squeeze, the location and orientation of the created fracture cannot
be controlled. Sedimentary rocks usually have an inherently low tensile strength, and are held
together primarily by the weight or the compressive forces of overlying formations.
These cohesive forces act in all directions to hold the rock together, but do not have the same
magnitude in all directions. When sufficient hydraulic pressure is applied against a formation, the
rock fractures along the plane are perpendicular to the direction of the least principal stress. A
horizontal fracture is created if the fracturing pressure is greater than the overburden pressure,
while a vertical fracture occurs if overburden pressure is greater than the formation fracture
pressure. The extent of the induced fracture is a function of the pump rate applied after the fracture
is initiated. The amount of slurry used depends on the way the operation is performed. High pump
rates generate large fractures; thus, large volumes of cement are required to fill them. A properly
performed, high-pressure squeeze should leave the cement as close to the wellbore as possible.
Drilling muds or other fluids with low fluid-loss rates should not be pumped ahead of the slurries. A
wash with a high fluid-loss rate, such as water or a weak hydrochloric acid solution, not only opens
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
smaller fractures but also cleans perforations and the cement path. The fracture initiation pressure is
lower using this type of spearhead than using non-penetrating fluids.
12.4.2 Factors Impacting on Selection of Placement Techniques for Remedial Cementing
Regardless of the technique used during a squeeze job, the cement slurry is subject to a differential
pressure against a filter of permeable rock.
The resulting physical phenomena are filtration, filter cake deposition and, in some cases, fracturing
of the formation. The slurry, subject to a differential pressure, loses part of its water to the porous
medium, and a cake of partially dehydrated and cement is formed.
The cement cake, forming against a permeable formation, has a high initial permeability (Figure
12-10). As the particles of cement accumulate the cake thickness and hydraulic, resistance increase;
as a result, the filtration rate decreases, and the pressure required dehydrating the cement’s slurry
further increases. The rate of filter-cake buildup is a function of four parameters:
• permeability of the formation,
• differential pressure applied,
• time, and
• capacity of the slurry to lose fluid at downhole conditions.
Figure 12-10 Cake permeability and dehydration rate of slurry
12.4.3 Best Practices for Design Cement Slurry
Lab tests are run prior to pumping cement in a well. Collecting accurate data prior to designing the
cement ensures a good cement design. The following factors will affect the cement slurry design:
• Well depth,
• Well temperature,
• Viscosity and water content of cement slurry,
• Strength of cement require to support the pipe,
• Quality of available mixing water,
• Type of workover fluid and density,
• Slurry density,
• Cement shrinkage,
• Permeability of set cement,
• Fluid loss requirements, and
• Resistance to corrosive fluids.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.5 Remedial Cementing Placement Techniques
The type of plug to be placed dictates the plug length, cement composition performance parameters,
and placement technique. The plug length mainly varies with placement techniques. The balanced-
plug method, requires the most volume since the method is the most prone to cement
contamination. The dump bailer method, usually used for temporary zonal isolation, requires short
lengths since cement is accurately placed over a solid base created by the bridge plug.
12.5.1 Cementing Plugs
Balanced-plug method
The balanced plug method is one of most frequently used methods (Figure 12-11). It is a simple
method and requires typical cementing service equipment. This method begins by placing a desired
quantity of slurry into the workstring and displacing it near the bottom of the workstring. The slurry
is often batch mixed for better density and rheology control. In addition, an appropriate volume of
spacer or chemical wash is pumped ahead of and behind the cement slurry to avoid any detrimental
contamination of the cement by the well fluid.
The volumes of spacer or wash are such that their heights in the annulus and work string/ tubing are
the same. When the height of cement inside the workstring is calculated to be equal to the height of
the cement that has exited the work string and traveled up the annular space, displacement is
stopped. Thus, when spacer fluid density is taken into consideration, the fluid inside and outside the
work string is calculated to be at a balance point. Once the cement is placed, the work string is slowly
pulled from the plug (27 to 43 m/min, 90 to 140 ft/min) to minimize disturbance of the cement. The
work string is retrieved to a point 10 to 15 stands above the calculated top of the cement, and
reverse circulation is started to displace any cement clinging to the pipe. It is common practice to
slightly under displace the plug (usually by 300 to 500 liters) to avoid well fluid flowback on the rig
floor when breaking the pipe connection after placement. This also allows the cement plug to reach
hydrostatic balance. Once the plug is balanced, the pipe is slowly pulled out of the cement to a depth
above the plug, and excess cement is reversed out, a shown in Figure 12-11.
Figure 12-11 Cement plug placed by balanced-plug placement method
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Setting a proficient plug is difficult because the cement slurry is usually much denser than the well
fluids. This density difference produces a gravitational instability that, in turn, allows the cement to
migrate downward through the well fluid(s) where the cement becomes contaminated.
Measures that can reduce the severity of cement contamination include:
• Improvements in hole-cleaning and/or slurry design.

• An increase in slurry volume.
The cement should be of such kind to gel quickly, and sufficient volume should be pumped to
minimize contamination.
Dump-bailer method
A dump bailer is a cylindrical container that holds a measured quantity of cement slurry and is run
into the well on wireline. A mechanically or electrically triggered mechanism on the bottom of the
device can open the bailer, releasing its contents into the wellbore at any specified depth. This
method (Figure 12-12) usually requires a mechanical packer, which is placed at the point of the plug
bottom to minimize migration of the small volumes of cement The method is limited by the volume
of cement that can be placed and by the depth at which placement can occur. However, the dump
bailer method has the advantage of accurate placement of small quantities of cement (an interval
length in the range 3 to 20 m ).
Placing plugs with dump bailers has generally not been very successful because of contamination
with borehole fluids and inability to dump viscous/ gelled slurry (standard neat cement) from the
bailer. There does not seem to be any significant difference in plugging success between gravity and
positive displacement type bailers. Dilution and contamination by wellbore fluids causes most of the
small slurry volume from each bailer run to be ineffective. Short plugs can sometimes be effective,
but long ones requiring multiple bailer runs usually are not.
However, unless coiled tubing is used, through-tubing plugging must be done with a bailer, requiring
multiple runs. These slurries must be mixed at the proper density and be designed with certain
properties.
Since placing a long plug in the hole so that it will be competent and stay in place cannot normally be
done with a dump bailer, it should be done through a workstring by either the balanced or two-plug
method.
The dump-bailer method involves setting a cement basket, permanent bridge plug or sand pack
below the desired plug location. The bailer then dumps the cement above the basket, bridge plug or
sand pack. The dump-bailer method is generally used at shallower depths. Present day retarders,
however, have increased the depth range to over 3500 m. These special slurry systems are
engineered to assure "dumpability" after long descents in severe well conditions. Dump-bailer
cement slurries are also engineered to provide maximum hydraulic seal with excellent anchoring.
Since the bailer is run on a wireline, the advantages of this method are low cost and depth control.
The disadvantages are adapting the method for setting deep plugs, contaminating the cement and
the slowness of the method.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Figure 12-12 Cement plug placed by Dump Bailer
Two-plug method
The two-plug method involves running a top and a bottom wiper plug during placement of the
cement slurry (Figure 12-13). The bottom plug precedes the cement and wipes the inside of the
workstring, preventing contamination. The wiper plugs isolate the cement from wellbore fluids in the
work string.
When the bottom plug reaches the end of the workstring, it exits into the wellbore and the cement
moves up the annulus.
A special tool, called a plug catcher, can be run on the bottom of the workstring. The goal is to place
the plug catcher at the depth where the cement plug is desired. As the last of the cement exits the
plug catcher, the top plug seats in the plug catcher, resulting in a pump pressure increase, which
indicates that cement placement, is complete.
The design of the plug catcher allows the workstring to be pulled up after placing the cement. In that
way the cement is placed at the desired depth. Applying more pressure into the work-string will
pump the top plug down into a setting cage inside of the plug catcher. This then allows circulation
through the workstring.
To minimize contamination, centralizers and rotating scratchers can be put at the lower end of the
bottom work string or tail pipe. The rotation of the scratchers cleans bypassed working fluid or mud
and allows it to mix uniformly with the cement, thus eliminating fluid channels in the unset cement.
The two-plug method offers five main advantages:
• Minimizes the possibility of over displacing,

• Reduces mud and cement contamination,
• Produces a tighter, harder cement structure,
• Establishes the plug top more accurately,
• Costs less than other methods that may require several attempts to get a good plug.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Figure 12-13 Two plug method
12.5.2 Technology Workflow for Cement Plug Placement
The workflow for placement cement plug/bridge is shown in Figure 12-14 .
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
PROCEDURE / WORKFLOW FOR PLACEMENT

CEMENT PLUG OR BRIDGE
No Yes
RIH Tubing with Seating Nipple to
RIH Tubing with Seating Nipple to Cement Bridge? the dept of minimum 10m above the
the bottom of the open interval top of open interval
Set up the Plug in Seating Nipple

with Wireline tool
Test Tubing mechanical sealing

integrity with Pressure
Pi= 0.05Ht
(Ht- tubing depth)
Yes No
Pressure drop after
No 15 min
Tubing Test is OK
Yes Close preventer and rise pressure

in the well by Pi=0.05Ht
With WL Tool, Pull out the Plug
from Seating Nipple
Replace damaged part of Tubing

String Test Is OK, Well is sealed, WO can
be continued
Pump the Water, Cement slurry No

and Working fluid through the
Yes
tubing Fluid Inflow is
detected after 2
hours
No
Washout Cement slurry
by reverse circulation
Displace fluid from the well by
swabbing so Ph=0.5Ph
Yes POOH Tubing string, Scraper and
Bit
Very slowly rice up the tubing so Yes
the bottom of the tubing string be
at the depth of the top of cement No
plug Test mechanical sealing
Drill Cement Plug/Bridge and integrity by swabbing the well
Wash out the Well by Reverse
Circulation
By Reverse circulating with
working fluid wash out the
excess volume of Cement slurry.
Test cement bridge mechanical
The volume of the working fluid
RIH Tubing string, Scraper and sealing integrity
is V=1.5Vt(M3)
Bit
Yes
POOH 10 Pieces of Tubing

No
Good quality of cement plug/
POOH the Tubing string
bridge is placed on target/
designed depth
Allowing the cement enough time
to develop its bonding and
sealing properties
RIH Tubing, Check the Depth and Consistency

of the Cement Plug/Bridge – Procedure for
checking plug/bridge quality
Figure 12-14 Cement plug placement workflow

12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.5.3 Squeeze Cementing Placement Techniques
Bradenhead Placement Technique
This technique, illustrated in (Figure 12-15), is normally used when low-pressure squeezing is
practiced, and when there are no doubts concerning the capacity of casing to withstand the squeeze
pressure. No special tools are involved, although a bridge plug may be required to isolate other open
perforations further downhole.
Open-ended tubing is run to the bottom of the zone to be cemented. Blowout preventer (BOP) rams
are closed over the tubing, and the injection test is performed. The cement slurry is subsequently
spotted in front of the perforations.
Once the cement is in place, the tubing is pulled out to a point above the cement top, the BOPs are
closed, and pressure is applied through the tubing. The Bradenhead squeeze is very popular because
of its simplicity.
The bradenhead squeeze technique is most aptly applied when repairing split or corroded casing. The
technique involves placing a cement plug below, across and above the interval to be squeezed. Then
the workstring is extracted to some distance (60-120m) above the cement plug. After reverse
circulating to assure that no cement is around the workstring, pressure is applied to the cement
column for dehydration until the cement is set and achieves approximately 100 psi compressive
strength. The maximum surface pressure to be put on the cement column should not exceed bottom
hole fracturing pressure less the hydrostatic pressure. The pressure may then be bled off while the
cement attains desired compressive strength prior to drilling out.
Bradenhead squeeze technique is very often applied when squeezing off perforations and
abandoning a depleted zone.
Figure 12-15 Braden head placement technique

12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Bullhead method
This technique can be used with or without downhole tools on the tubing. The wellhead annulus is
closed at the beginning and cement is pumped down the tubing by displacing into the formation
whatever fluid happens to be in the well.
When downhole problems prevent the hole from being circulated and cleaned, or the problem
cannot be addressed by conventional perforating and squeezing, the cement may have to be
bullheaded down the annulus. Although bullheading is not a true squeeze technique, it may be the
only way to seal off a troublesome zone. Bullheading pushes everything ahead of the cement into the
formation; therefore, care must be taken to ensure that incompatible fluids are not forced into
potential producing formations. Often, low-density, high-yield, inexpensive slurries are used, because
large slurry volumes and multiple attempts may be necessary to complete this process.
The detailed workflow of squeeze cementing without using squeeze tolls by pumping the cement
slurry direct through tubing is shown in Figure 12-16.
Squeeze Tool Placement Technique
This technique can be subdivided into two parts: the retrievable squeeze packer method, and the
drillable cement retainer method. The main objective of using squeeze tools is to isolate the casing
and wellhead while high pressure is applied downhole.
Tool selection and placement are critical since using the wrong tool may cause more problems to
occur after the squeeze. Two basic types of tools are used for squeeze cementing: retrievable and
no-retrievable (drillable). A wireline or mechanical bridge plug seals off the zone below the squeeze
interval to keep the slurry from being pumped, or from freefalling down the casing. Most plugs are
drilled after the job; however, some can be retrieved if they are not cemented in place. Sand is often
placed on top of the plug to prevent it from being cemented and to allow retrieval after the job. This
technique is especially useful for squeezing multiple zones. When they plan to reverse-circulate
excess cement after placement, operators use a retrievable packer above the zone. Retrievable
packers are equipped with bypass valves that permit complete circulation of the wellbore (1) while
the tool string is being run in the hole, (2) after the packer has been set, or (3) during reverse
circulating after the job. This circulation capability prevents excessive pressure from being applied to
the formation while the tool string is being run into in the hole, and it prevents the well from being
swabbed when the packer is released and retrieved. Retrievable packers can be either tension- or
compression-set and can be run on wireline or a workstring. Drillable packers or retainers can also be
used; however, double check-valves are built into these tools to prevent unwanted flow from either
direction. Once the packer is set, a workstring is strung into the retainer, and then cement is pumped
and squeezed below the retainer. The workstring is then pulled out, and the retainer is closed.
Retainers are often used to help prevent pressure reductions in the wellbore from causing cement
flowback either after the squeeze job or when the cement is separating zones that have a high
pressure differential. Setting a retainer between the zones isolates the intervals and permits to
squeeze the lower zone and the upper zones in one application.
Retrievable Squeeze Packer Method
Retrievable packers with different design features are available (Chapter 5, WELL RECOMPLETION).
Compression- or tension-set packers are used in squeeze cementing. As shown (Figure 12-17), they
have a bypass valve to allow the circulation of fluids while running in the hole, and once the packer is
set. This feature allows the cleaning of the tools after the cement job, and the reversing out of excess
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
slurry without excessive pressure; it also prevents a piston or swabbing effect while running in or out
of the hole.
Procedure of Squeeze Cementing Through

Tubing with Pressure Lower than Fracturing
Pressure Squeeze cement slurry in open
Interval with pressure lower than
fracturing pressure
RIH Tubing with seating nipple
to the bottom of the interval witch
should be closed
Leave the well under final treatment
pressure for period 4-6 hours
Set up plug in seating nipple with
wireline tool
Bleed of pressure, open preventer
and POOH tubing string
Test tubing mechanical sealing integrity
with maximum pressure witch is expect at
the wellhead during cementing job
RIH tubing string, scraper and
drilling bit
Yes
Tubing test OK
No After cement thickening (typically 4-6 hours-
at least minimum 30 min greater than time
required to place cement and reverse out
Replace damaged part of the tubing
excess cement slurry volume) check the depth
string and consistency of the cement plug by
increasing the weight up to 5tons
With wireline tool pull out the plug from

D seath No
Is cement plug
consistent?
Connect cement displacement pump
Yes
and Well
No
Is the depth of
Test mechanical integrity of surface cement OK?
injection lines with maximum pressure
witch is expect at the wellhead during Yes
cementing job
Test mechanical sealing integrity by
No swabbing the well Ph=0.5Pr
Surface injection
lines test OK
Yes Drill cement plug and repeat
cementing job
Set up cement plug No
Depth
of cement
Replace damaged part of the surface plug is shallower
injection lines than designed
dept
Yes
Yes Wash Drill cement plug to the designed

Pull up tubing to dept of out the excess depth
cement slurry flushing volume of cement
slurry
Test
No No
By reverse circulating with mechanical
working fluid, wash out sealing integrity
Pull up tubing above is OK
the excess volume of
the depth of cement
cement slurry. The volume Yes
slurry and water
of the working fluid is
column
V=1.5Vt(M3)
Perforate new interval and
POOH tubing string,
complete the well for
scraper and drilling bit
Close preventer and production
casing valve
Figure 12-16 Squeezing cement through tubing with pressure lower than formation fracturing pressure
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
The principal advantage of the retrievable packer over the drillable retainer is its ability to set and
release many times, thus allowing more flexibility. Retrievable bridge plugs can be run in one trip
with the packer, and retrieved after the slurry has been reversed or drilled out. Most operators drop
one or two sacks of frac sand on top of the retrievable bridge plug before the job, to prevent the
settling of cement over the releasing mechanism.
Another important advantage of using retrievable packers is that they are usually full-opening tools.
This allows for running wireline and other tools through and below the packer (i.e., perforating and
logging tools, wiper balls, etc.).
Figure 12-17 Bridge plug with cement packer
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Drillable Cement Retainer
Cement retainers are used instead of packers to prevent backflow when no cement dehydration is
expected, or when a high negative differential pressure may disturb the cement cake. In certain
situations, potential communication with upper perforations makes the use of a packer a risky
operation. When cementing multiple zones, the cement retainer isolates the lower perforations, and
subsequent zone squeezing can be performed without waiting for the slurry to set. Cement retainers
are drillable packers provided with a valve which is operated by a stinger at the end of the work
string and can be set either on wireline, tubing or coiled tubing (Figure 12-18).
A drillable retainer gives the operator more confidence in setting the packer closer to the
perforations. This is also advantageous in that a lower volume of fluid below the packer is displaced
through the perforations ahead of the cement slurry.
Drillable bridge plugs are normally used to isolate the casing below the zone to be treated. Their
design is similar to that of cement retainers. They can be run with a wireline or with the work string.
Bridge plugs do not allow flow through the tool.
Figure 12-18 Drillable cement retainer set and/or operated on wireline, tubing or coiled tubing
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.5.4 Pumping Techniques
Running Squeeze Pumping Method
During a running squeeze procedure, the cement slurry is pumped continuously until the final
desired squeeze pressure (which may be above or below the fracture pressure) is attained. After
pumping stops, the pressure is monitored and, if the pressure falls due to additional filtration at the
cement/formation interface, more slurry is pumped to maintain the final surface squeeze pressure.
This continues until the well maintains the squeeze pressure for several minutes without additional
injection of cement slurry. The volume of slurry injected is usually ranging from 1.5 to 15 m3 (10 to
100 barrels).
Staging Technique
Staging is sometimes referred to as the batch method. When the pumping process fails to result in
reaching the desired squeeze pressure, it is usually over displaced (put away) and allowed to set up
(harden, or at least develop sufficient gel strength until it cannot be pumped). Then another
stage/batch of cement is used to try again. The process is repeated until the squeeze pressure is
obtained, which may or may not happen after many successive attempts.
Hesitation Squeeze Pumping Method
In this process, pumping is stopped occasionally for short periods of time during the pressure
building process to allow the cement slurry to dehydrate slightly and build a filter cake against the
exposed rock. As these voids are plugged, they allow pressure to be increased in the next
pressurization period, so that the liquid cement slurry that remains can be placed into new voids at
the higher pressure. This maximizes the opportunity to get slurry into all the voids, which in turn
helps achieve the desired squeeze pressure with the first batch of cement and eliminate the need for
additional stages. It is a useful technique in all wells, and is usually required for low permeability
formations where cement filter-cake buildup is very slow.
This procedure involves the intermittent application of pressure (at a rate of 1.5 to 3 m3/min, 1/4 to
1/2 bbl/min), separated by an interval of 10 to 20 minutes for pressure leak-off due to filtrate loss to
the formation. This allows time for the cement which has been placed into the perforations tunnel to
dehydrate against the formation. After the pressure has stabilized or after 10 minutes, pressure up
on the cement plug again. Continue to pump until the pump pressure begins to move the cement
again i.e. the pump pressure will stabilize. Pump 3 to 6 m3 bbl after the cement begins to move, and
then shut down the pump. It is required to wait until the pressure bleeds back and begins to stabilize
or a maximum of 10 minutes. Continue this staging process until the cement will no longer move (i.e.
the pump pressure reaches the fracturing pressure of the zone or the burst strength of the tubulars).
The initial leak-off is normally fast because there is no filter cake. As the cake builds up, and the
applied pressure increases, the filtration periods become longer and the difference between the
initial and final pressures become smaller, until at the end of the job the pressure leak-off becomes
negligible (Figure 12-19). The volumes of slurry necessary for this technique are usually much less
than those required for a running squeeze.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Figure 12-19 A typical pressure chart of a hesitation squeeze
Building Final Squeeze Pressure
In reality, the conditions within the formation being squeezed will determine which is most likely to
occur. A properly executed injection test will reveal this. A loose injection profile indicates that
hesitation and pump cycles are probably needed to achieve a successful squeeze. A loose injection
profile can also be a candidate for a running squeeze in cases when injection is the consequence of
high permeability. Frequently it is difficult to distinguish between permeability and fractures from
the surface. A tight injection profile will indicate a running squeeze is likely. However, these trends
are not hard and fast rules.
A competent hesitation designed and tested slurry can easily obtain a running squeeze, if the
formation is conducive to a running squeeze and is not damaged in the process. Slurries without
sufficient fluid loss control and/or not tested on a hesitation schedule are not effective when
hesitating and may dehydrate prematurely. These type slurries are also not effective at obtaining a
running squeeze. They may dehydrate prematurely and block slurry from reaching the tighter areas
within the squeeze zone. Surface indications can show a high final pressure and what appears to be a
good squeeze. Often the pressure is exerted against a bridge of dehydrated cement, preventing the
transmission of pressure to the formation.
The hesitation test verifies that the slurry can be stopped and started again any number of times
while remaining fluid and pumpable. Even when it is certain that a running squeeze is going to occur,
the first thing to be done after reaching the maximum allowable pressure is to stop the pump. The
pressure is monitored to see if it is going to hold or leak off. If it holds, a running squeeze has
occurred and it is time to reverse out the excess cement in the workstring.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Figure 12-20 Squeeze cementing through tubing, packer or cement retainer
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Figure 12-21 Squeeze cementing through tubing, packer or cement retainer (continuation)
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Figure 12-22 Squeeze cementing through tubing, packer or cement retainer (continuation)
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.5.5 Squeeze Cementing Placement Techniques
Figure 12-23 Isolating of the production interval (one zone)
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Figure 12-24 Isolating of the production interval (two or more zones)
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.6 Materials Used for Remedial Cementing
Cement
Portland cement is used during almost all well cementing jobs. It is a finely divided and highly
reactive powder. The vigorous hydration of Portland cement during initial mixing, as well as the
changeable slurry properties during placement, complicates the design of cement mixing and
pumping equipment.
Portland cement is usually stored in silos at a central storage location. Alternatively, it is packaged in
metric (50-kg) sacks, and in so-called “big bags” (1 to 1.5 metric tons generally), or in larger
quantities (truck, railway car, or ship).
Water
Fresh water is normally used for cementing onshore wells, and seawater for offshore locations.
However, one must be aware that fresh waters are often not very “fresh.” Inorganic salts and organic
plant residues are frequently present in significant quantities. Such materials are known to affect the
performance of Portland cement systems.
Additives
Additives modify the behavior of the cement system, ideally allowing successful slurry placement,
rapid compressive strength development and adequate zonal isolation during the lifetime of the well.
12.6.1 Cement Types (Standard and Special Types)
Portland cement
Portland cement is by far the most important binding material in terms of quantity produced; indeed,
it is possible that it may be the most ubiquitous manufactured material. Portland cement is used in
nearly all well cementing operations.
Portland cement is the most common example of Hydraulic cement. Such cements set and develop
compressive strength as a result of hydration, which involves chemical reactions between water and
the compounds present in the cement, not upon a drying-out process. The setting and hardening
occur not only if the cement/water mixture is left to stand in air, but also if it is placed in water. The
development of strength is predictable, uniform and relatively rapid. The set cement also has low
permeability, and is nearly insoluble in water; therefore, exposure to water does not destroy the
hardened material. Such attributes are essential for a cement to achieve and maintain zonal
isolation.
API Classification System
• Class A: Intended for use from surface to a depth of 1830 m (6000 ft), when special
properties are not required.
• Class B: Intended for use from surface to a depth of 1830 m (6000 ft), when conditions
require moderate to high sulfate resistance. Has a lower C3A content than a class A.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
• Class C: Intended for use from surface to a depth of 1830 m (6000 ft), when conditions
require high early strength. Class C is available in all three degrees of sulfate resistance. To
achieve high early strength, the C3S content and the surface area are relatively high.
Classes D, E and F are also known as“retarded cements,” intended for use in deeper wells. The
retardation is accomplished by significantly reducing the amount of faster-hydrating phases (C3S and
C3A), and increasing the particle size of the cement grains.
• Class D: Intended for use at depths from 5,000 ft (1,520 m) to 10,000 ft (3,050 m), under
conditions of moderately high temperatures and pressures.
• Class E: Intended for use from 6000 ft (1830 m) to 14,000 ft (4,260 m) depth, under
conditions of high temperatures and pressures.
• Class F: Intended for use from 10,000 ft (3,050 m) to 16,000 ft (4,870 m) depth, under
conditions of extremely high temperatures and pressures.
Classes G and H were developed in response to the improved technology in slurry acceleration and
retardation by chemical means. The manufacturer is prohibited from adding special chemicals, such
as glycols or acetates, to the clinker. Such chemicals improve the efficiency of grinding, but have
been shown to interfere with various cement additives.
• Class G: Intended for use as a basic well cement

• Class H: surface to 8,000 ft (2,440 m) depth as manufactured, or can be used with
accelerators and retarders to cover a wide range of well depths and temperatures. No
additions other than calcium sulfate or water, or both, shall be blended with the clinker
during manufacture of Class G and H well cements.
The chemical compositions of Classes G and H are essentially identical. The principal difference is the
surface area. Class H is significantly coarser than Class G, as evidenced by their different water
requirements.
Table 12-1 Application of API Classes of Cement
Thixotropic Cement
Thixotropic cement is intended to control loss of whole cement into a fractured or highly permeable
zone, such that a seal around the wellbore can be obtained. It consists of a mixture of API Class G
cement modified with about 6 to 8% sulfate, which provides pumpable slurry as long as it is being
moved but which develops high gel strength rapidly when not agitated. In application, it is usually
spotted over the zone to be sealed off, and a shortened ‘’hesitation squeeze’’ technique used to
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
obtain a pressure buildup. A more recent thixotropic type cementing formulation contains about
896.364 kg/m3 (1 Ib/sk) of gum cross linked with an organic material, dry-blended with API Class G
Cement. Also, thixotropic cement can be used to squeeze a low-pressure zone. This special slurry is
pumpable as long as tie slurry is moved, but its thixotropic (or high gel strength) properties provide a
rapid set and strength buildup when it is not agitated or moved. This property may initiate bridging
or plugging of fractures resulting in a rapid pressure buildup, especially during a hesitation squeeze.
Thixotropic cement may be used as lead slurry followed by high fluid loss slurry.
Two-Stage Sodium Silicate-Cement System
A second technique designed to plug a fractured or highly permeable zone involves a two-stage
treatment. The first stage is a sodium silicate-like polymer solution containing fibrous material
and/or sand for bridging. This mixture forms a stiff gel when it comes in contact with formation
saltwater (or injected saltwater). This, in effect, temporarily seals the formation permeability, such
that the second stage, consisting of normal squeeze cement slurry, is contained in the vicinity of the
wellbore to provide a permanent shut-off.
Silica Flour, or Silica Sand, is normally used at a concentration of 35% by weight of the cement when
the cement slurry will be exposed to flowing temperatures of 110°C (230°F), or greater. At 110 -
176.6°C (230-350°F), silica flour reacts faster than silica sand. Above 176.6°C (350°F), reaction rates
are practically the same, but silica sand is easier to mix.
Diesel Oil Cement (DOC)
The purpose of diesel oil cement is to control extraneous formation water. DOC consists of Portland
cement mixed in diesel oil or kerosene (no water) with a surfactant to improve wetting of cement
particles. The cement will not set up until it is contacted with water, hopefully from the extraneous
water zone. Successful application of DOC requires that it be properly placed in contact with the
water zone and that it not contact water from the producing zone. As a practical matter, this
requirement limits the usefulness of diesel oil cement systems.
Ultrafine Cement
Ultrafine cement or Micro Matrix (trade name) has an average particle size of about 4-5 microns,
compared with about 100 microns for normal Class A or G cement. In laboratory tests ultrafine
cement particles penetrate opening as small as 5 microns (0.002 in)—or clean sands as fine as 100
meshes. Thus, ultrafine slurries may have possibilities for squeeze cementing small-opening casing
leaks, small channels or fractures, and gravel packs. With greater particle surface area strength
buildup is more rapid than normal cement slurries under similar curing conditions.
It should be recognized that in formations having larger pore openings or fractures, the cement
particles (not just the filtrate) may enter the pore channels to plug off some distance away from the
wellbore. With a normal cement particle size, the particles bridge off or form filter cake on the
formation face. All that enters the formation pore system is the cement filtrate which is usually
considered to be non-damaging. This may not be true with ultrafine cement slurries.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.6.2 Foamed Cement
Foamed cement is a fine dispersion of gas (usually nitrogen) in cement slurry, which contains a
foaming surfactant and foam stabilizer. Foam quality is the ratio between the volume occupied by
the gas and the total volume of the foam, expressed as a percentage. Foamed cements are dilute
foam where spherical bubbles are separated by viscous film and the quality is less than 50%.
Foam density is dependent on final slurry property requirement. Cement slurry with normal water
density ranges between 1761.45 - 1977.14 kg/m3 (14.7 to 16.5ppg) require high nitrogen volume
whereas extended slurries need less gas. Common foam densities applied in the field are from 838-
1437 kg/m3 (7 to 12 ppg) with compressive strengths of 35-83 bar (500 to 1200 psi, respectively.
Because of the thixotropic nature of the foamed cement, it resists in-flow from the formation. The
cost of these treatments compares favorably with those using perlite or microsphere cements. Major
savings are achieved resulting from reductions in rig time, because the need for the setting of lost-
circulation plugs is eliminated.
12.6.3 Cement Additives
Eight categories of additives are generally recognized:

1. Accelerators: chemicals which reduce the setting time of a cement system, and increase the
rate of compressive strength development.
Calcium Chloride is the most common accelerator used. Calcium Chloride does not increase
the final strength of cement and may perhaps lower the final compressive strength a little.
Most fluid loss additives do not work well with Calcium Chloride in the cement slurry. Sodium
Silicate is recommended if low fluid loss is required with fluid loss control in most cases.
Special mixing is required for sodium silicate slurries:
• if accelerator is used then the accelerator must be added first.
• if a retarder is to be used then the Sodium Silicate should be added first and
the retarder must be added last.
Accelerated slurries are also used as a restriction to help attain a squeeze. Slurries can be
accelerated to set in 15 minutes using control-setting gypsum cement. Two-phase slurry can
be used with accelerated lead slurry followed by high fluid loss slurry. The intent is to slow
down or restrict the accelerated slurry squeeze with the high fluid loss slurry. Fluid loss
characteristics may be adjusted on the tail-in slurry depending on the permeability of the
formation. Accelerated slurries increase the risk of premature setting, so use them
cautiously.
2. Retarders: chemicals which extend the setting time of a cement system.
Lignosulfonates and their derivatives make up the majority of the cement retarders for use in
low and medium temperatures. (25°C– 105°C) Higher temperature retarders are composed
of Polyhydroxy Organic Acids and sugar derivatives.
3. Extenders: materials which lower the density of a cement system, and/or reduce the
quantity of cement per unit volume of set product (decreasing the total cost).
Pre-hydrated Bentonite is the best example of cost saving of neat cement slurry. However, if
low fluid loss is required, the cement can become more expensive as the increased water in
the system requires more chemicals to prevent it from escaping from the slurry. Sodium
Silicates have also been used to lower the density of cement but are more expensive than
pre-hydrated Bentonite.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
4. Weighting Agents: materials which increase the density of a cement system.

Hematite (a form of Iron Oxide) is normally used to densify cement, but manganese
tetraoxide is also available (Micromax). This product has a lower specific gravity than
Hematite but is spherical and small in size. It has two primary advantages:
• it is ground small (less than 1 micron) which allows it to be blended in the
mix water,
• it is spherical which makes the gel strengths much lower, thus reducing the
viscosity.
Weighting Materials should be used only if additional cement density is required to contain
abnormally high formation pressures. It is not recommended at all to use thin slurries when
using weighting materials due to excessive settling problems.
5. Dispersants (Friction Reducers): chemicals which reduce the viscosity of cement slurry.
The functions of dispersants are:
• to thin the slurry in order to reduce the turbulent flow rate or enable
easy mixing of slurry.
• to densify cement slurry (increase the solid-to-liquid ratio).
• to aid in fluid loss control.
Dispersants, and/or friction reducers, should be used only if the slurry must be thickened
without the use of weighting materials.
6. Fluid-Loss Control Agents: materials which control the loss of the aqueous phase of a cement
system to the formation.
This class of cement chemicals and gas migration additives are generally the most expensive
part of the cementing invoice. If high fluid loss occurs the following can happen:
• Premature dehydration of slurry, which can cause annulus plugging and incomplete
placement of slurry.
• Changes in slurry flow properties (rheology) and increased slurry density.
• Damage to production zones by cement filtrate.
7. Lost Circulation Materials (LCM): materials which control the loss of cement slurry to weak
or vugular formations.
8. Specialty Additives: miscellaneous additives, e.g., antifoam agents, fibers, bridging agents
etc.
Anti-Foaming agents are used only if slurry aeration is expected to present a mixing problem,
or a downhole density problem. Anti-Foaming should be used when mixing salt cement
systems or using sea water as mixing water.
Bridging agents, such as Gilsonite (a natural, resinous hydrocarbon or natural asphalt),
perlites (naturally occurring as siliceous rock, that when heated to a suitable point in its
softening range, expands from four to twenty times its original volume) and sand has been
used with good success. Perhaps the best of these is Gilsonite. Many combinations have
been tried and they all may be acceptable for a particular situation. For instance, two-phase
slurry may be used. The lead blurry may have 5 lb of Gilsonite per sack, followed by neat
cement. The intent here is to bridge oil with the lead slurry and squeeze with its tailin slurry.
Some people take an entirely different approach. They run the neat slurry ahead of the
bridging agent. The intent is to be sure to get some cement into the formation before a
squeeze occurs. If this is the situation, then the design was proper.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
9. Non-Foamers
The function of non-foamer (defoamers) in cement slurry is to release trapped air in the
slurry as it is being mixed. Entrapped air causes viscosity increases, which make the cement
slurry more difficult to mix. Entrapped air also makes the density of the slurry more difficult
to measure. The addition of excess non-foamer can stabilize foam. Bentonite cement slurries
usually require twice much non-foamer than conventional cements. Latex cements may
require as much as five times more non-foamer than conventional cement slurries.
12.6.4 Spacers and Washes
There are two major concerns related to the success of cement placement. Cleaning of perforations
and surrounding voids. Solids-carrying fluids or drilling mud must be removed from the perforation
channels and the formation face to allow a proper dehydration process and complete fill-up.
Slurry properties, such as fluid loss, thickening time, and viscosity, can be modified by cement
contact with completion fluids. A small quantity of contaminated slurry, having a high fluid-loss rate
or high viscosity, may readily block channels and prevent optimum slurry placement.
In low-pressure squeezing, treatments related to the first point are performed as a separate stage.
Usually, cement slurry contamination is avoided by pumping a compatible water spacer ahead of and
behind the cement. If the cement is not spotted, a chemical wash or weak acid solution may be
squeezed ahead of the slurry, separated by a compatible fluid.
Cement properties for various squeeze and plugging applications are outlined in Table 12-2 and Table
12-3.
Table 12-2 Cement properties for various types of squeeze application
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Table 12-3 Cement properties for various types of plug application
12.6.5 Laboratory Procedure for Testing Cement, Slurry, Foamed Cement
Types of Tests
The cement lab routinely performs the following test on all field cement jobs:
• Thickening Time (pumping time),
• Fluid Loss (only if the slurry contains fluid loss additives),
• Free Fluid (free water, vertical or 45 degrees),
• Rheology (determine turbulent flow rate),
• Sonic Strength (compressive strength), and
• Slurry Density (pressurized density balance).
The cement lab can perform the following additional tests at the special request:
• Static Gel Strength,
• Settling (density settling),
• Expansion (both linear and radial),
• Cement-Spacer-Mud compatibility,
• Gas Migration Potential, and
• Cement ROP (Kick-off/Sidetrack Plugs).
Cement Samples should be sent for testing for the following reasons:
• Forman or Engineer suspects a problem with cement additives or mix water.
• Service company lab not functioning.
• BHST > 100°C.
• Abnormal well conditions that may adversely affect the cement job.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.7 Models for Planning and Designing Remedial Cementing Jobs in OMV
Petrom
Squeeze Job Planning
Planning is the most important single step in any squeeze operation. Well conditions should be
studied and objectives should be carefully established as squeeze cementing can be complicated and
expensive. Once the need for a squeeze cement job has been confirmed, planning, design, and
execution procedures can be combined into a successful program. The fourth and final step in any
squeeze-cementing operation is a proper evaluation of the successful application. The guidelines
presented in Table 12-4 can be used to complete these processes.
Table 12-4 Remedial cementing planning, designing and executing processes
Process of Designing a Cement Squeeze Treatment

Process What to do Notes
Planning • Determine the problem and reason The most important basic rule in job
to squeeze and/or plug. planning is to determine the problem.
• Analyze the wellbore conditions. This is absolutely essential. If some sort
• Select the appropriate squeeze and of understanding about the problem
plug placement technique. cannot be reached, a diagnostic
procedure should be initiated.
Designing • Select the proper tools for squeeze Many factors affect squeeze
and plug. applications; however, when the
• Select all other fluids used in the problem is diagnosed properly and a
process, i.e., perforating. good plan is prepared, a squeeze and
• Fluids, acids, cement spacers, plug cement design can be a fairly
completion fluids, etc. simple process.
• Design the cement slurry to correct The design of the job starts with the
the problem. definition of the objective. Setting a plug
• Prepare a detailed job procedure. for lost circulation is quite different from
setting a plug to abandon a depleted
zone or to plug back a well.
Executing • Prepare the wellbore and clean all Once the plan has been established and
voids to be squeezed. the calculations have been double
• Set the squeeze tools at the desired checked, the last phase of the squeeze
locations. program is the implementation of
• Set equipment and mix the slurry squeeze and plug workflows and
properly. procedures.
• Place the cement and apply the The detailed workflows and detailed
squeeze pressure. procedures for squeeze cement or using
• Hold the cement in place until it cement plugs should be applied.
hardens.
• Allow enough WOC time to test or
log the squeeze job.
Evaluating • Perform positive and negative The primary quality control and job
pressure test. evaluation for a of remedial cementing
• Perform bond log. operation is the application of hydraulic
• Acoustic log. pressure to the treated interval. A
• Temperature profile. cement bond-log (CBL) or evaluation
• Radioactive tracers. tool (Cement-Sheath Evaluation) can
measure annular cement fill,
compressive strength, and the bond
integrity of the cement.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.7.1 Chemical Methods for Water Control
Alternative approach to Workover is to squeeze (bullheading) all zones with one of the available
Organic Crosslinked Polymer (OCP) - Sealants or Relative Permeability Modificator (RPM).
Polymer gels often represent a valid and economic alternative to mechanical isolation, but, their
application requires the water zones to be identified and isolated. Therefore, in micro-layered
formations, excessive water rates can determine a premature abandonment when no efficient and
low-risk water control technologies are identified.
Water Shutoff by Relative Permeability Modifier (RPM) Polymer Treatments
An option, that can be considered when conventional approaches cannot be applied, is the injection,
into all open intervals, of chemicals that selectively reduce the permeability to water (RPM
bullheading treatments).
The systems that are most commonly used for this purpose are solutions of water-soluble, high
molecular weight polymers that adsorb onto the pore surface and change the flow properties of the
porous medium. The main advantages of this approach are:
• Low cost (the chemical is used in limited quantities and the treatment does not require zone
isolation).
• Low risk (the polymer reduces the water permeability without plugging the formation).
• Low environmental impact.
Although the application of these treatments in the field is relatively simple, field tests generally can
be carried out in the absence of reliable criteria to select candidate wells and chemicals. This trial-
and-error approach is responsible for the moderate success ratio and for the difficulties in
interpreting filed-test results.
Starting from the main operative questions key mechanisms that operate at the different scales in
the reservoir should be defined and analyzed.
Well Candidate and Chemical Selection

From the operator’s point of view one of the most important needs in the field application of RPM
treatments is to be able to formulate reliable answers to the following key questions:
• Will selected well respond to an RPM treatment?
• What chemical system and operating conditions (volumes, flow rates, etc.) will give optimal
results?
This implies the availability of rules to be applied in each particular case on the basis of field data.
The development of such reliable criteria requires systematic study of the key physical and chemical
mechanisms that operate in the different phases of a treatment (selection of the chemical, injection,
post-treatment).
The best candidates are wells in multi-layered matrix formations with one or more layers that are still
saturated with hydrocarbons. If water is mobile in all productive layers the benefits from an RPM
treatment can be of limited duration because it may cause significant reductions in bottomhole
pressure.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Water Shut-off by Organically Crosslinked Polymer (OCP) Treatments

The OCP system is based on a copolymer of acrilamide and t-butyl acrylate (PAtBA) crosslinked with
polyetylenamine (PEI). It is applied as solutions for water coning, / cresting, high-permeability
streaks, fracture shut-off and or casing-leak repair. The OCP system has been successfully applied to
sandstone, carbonate, and shale formation in need of conformance treatment.
This method is applied in the cases where water and hydrocarbon zones are clearly separated.
The principle of operation of this technique is to pump the polymer system into the formation
around the wellbore and allow it to propagate through the rock matrix. In-situ gelation takes place,
plugging pore spaces and channels, thus, limiting undesired water flow.
This system has a temperature range from 21 to 177oC. The sealant system components are easily
diluted in the mixing brine. The cross-linking process is activated by the temperature of the well. The
crosslinking rate is dependent on temperature, salinity, pH, and base polymer and crosslinker
concentrations. The sealant system offers the following advantages:
It is low-viscosity fluid system (20-30 cP) that can be easily injected deep into matrix of the formation
without underground hydrolysis and precipitation. It is well-known that chrome-based system tends
to hydrolyze and precipitate, especially with increasing pH and temperature. It provides adequate
pumping times in environments up to 177 °C to obtain adequate placement time before the system
undergoes the phase change from liquid to a three-dimensional gel structure. This transition time is
completely controllable and predictable with the crosslinker concentration for a given temperature.
It provides effective permeability reduction and sufficient strength for resisting drawdown pressure
inside the wellbore and stopping water. The system provides sufficient strength for resisting
differential pressure of at least 172 bar (2500 psi). Thermal stability of OCP has been tested up to
191oC and it is not sensitive to formation fluids, lithology, and/or heavy metals.
This kind of polymer tends to selectively enter and seal off the more permeable zones, which are
probably producing the highest volume of water.
12.8 Downhole Equipment for Remedial Cementing
Remedial cementing tools are mechanical and/or hydraulic devices that are used down-hole to assist
in cement slurry placement, isolation, fluid control and pressure control during the remedial
cementing process (especially when performing the various functions of squeeze cementing). They
are used to expedite the placement of relatively small volumes of cement slurry through large
volumes of well fluids into a specific, targeted area within a long interval of cased or open wellbore.
Downhole tools are used to isolate this specific area from the rest of the wellbore or to isolate, or
protect, other areas in the well from the cementing process performed in that area. They are used to
control the flow path of cement slurry; spacer fluids and well fluids during the placement and
pressure building phases of the squeeze job. Tools are used to direct the pressure application to the
squeeze zone and prevent its application where it is not needed.
The basic tools in a squeeze tool operator's arsenal are squeeze packers. As mentioned previously,
squeeze packers are grouped in one of two main categories: retrievable squeeze packers and
drillable squeeze packers.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Retrievable squeeze packers are run, set and retrieved on a workstring. They are constructed of
mostly non-drillable steel alloys. They could be millable, if there is enough time and money (but, then
again, maybe not). Rubberize or rubber-like elastomer sealing elements provide the annular
isolation. Retrievable squeeze packers are intended to be released and pulled from the well after the
job is complete. The cementing process must be planned and executed with their removal being
paramount in importance. Retrievable squeeze packers are often referred to as simply packers.
Drillable squeeze packers, also known as cement retainers, can be run and set on a workstring or
wireline. Obviously, the drillable squeeze packers are constructed of all drillable materials, usually
aluminum alloys, brass, rubber or rubber-like materials, etc. Packer slips are commonly made of
materials like cast iron that are hard so they will bite against the casing wall but will break up into
small pieces when drilled by a bit or mill. When well conditions or required procedures threaten the
ability to remove a retrievable packer, a drillable packer should be used instead.
Drillable squeeze packers (cement retainers) are not to be confused with more recently developed
drillable service packers. Drillable service packers were developed to fill the need for a drillable
packer that performs multiple service functions generally undertaken with retrievable and
permanent packers. Drillable service packers offer the advantage of larger bore sizes with the
running and operational conveniences of the cement retainer. This includes squeeze cementing.
However, they have not replaced the highly reliable retrievable squeeze packers or cement retainers.
For 90% or more of squeeze jobs that utilize a squeeze packer, the job can be completed using either
a retrievable squeeze packer or drillable cement retainer. There are, however, a small percentage of
squeeze jobs where the downhole conditions demand the use of one over the other and selecting
the wrong one can yield disappointing results.
There is a vast array of complimentary and accessory tools that have specific functions, which can be
employed on remedial cement jobs. Most should not be run routinely but only be used when the
need exists. Bridge plugs are mechanical isolation tools that are available in retrievable or drillable
models. Bridge plugs are just that and cannot be pumped through. There is a wide assortment of
products and brand names for service tools that perform the same or similar functions. Care must be
exercised to prevent the misapplication of a particular tool.
A wireline or mechanical bridge plug seals off the zone below the squeeze interval to keep the slurry
from being pumped in, or from freefalling down the casing. Most plugs are drilled after the job.
However, some can be retrieved if they are not cemented in place. Sand is often placed on top of the
plug to prevent it from being cemented and to allow retrieval after the job. This technique is
especially useful for squeezing multiple zones.
When the plan is to reverse-circulate excess cement after placement, operators use a retrievable
packer above the zone. Retrievable packers are equipped with bypass valves that permit complete
circulation of the wellbore (1) while the tool string is being run in the hole, (2) after the packer has
been set, or (3) during reverse circulating after the job.
This circulation capability prevents excessive pressure from being applied to the formation while the
tool string is being run into in the hole, and it prevents the well from being swabbed when the packer
is released and retrieved. Retrievable packers can be either tension- or compression-set and can be
run on wireline or a workstring/tubing. A fiberglass or aluminum tailpipe can be attached to the
bottom of the packer to allow the cement slurry to be spotted close to the zone while the packer is
set well above the zone.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Drillable packers or retainers can also be used. However, double check-valves are built into these
tools to prevent unwanted flow from either direction. Once the packer is set, a workstring is strung
into the retainer, and then cement is pumped and squeezed below the retainer. The workstring is
then pulled out, and the retainer is closed.
Retainers are often used to help prevent pressure reductions in the wellbore from causing cement
flow back, either after the squeeze job or when the cement is separating zones that have a high-
pressure differential. Setting a retainer between the zones isolates the intervals and permits
operators to squeeze the lower zone and the upper zones in one application.
Bridge plugs. These tools are used to establish a new well bottom anywhere up hole from the
existing total depth (TD). A permanent type tool will establish a new and semi-permanent plugged-
back total depth (PBTD), since it must be drilled out if it is to be removed in the future. When this is
not desirable, a retrievable type is used so that it can be removed by picking it up with the tubing
string at any time. In this case, a few feet of sand fill is placed on top of the bridge plug so the
retrieving neck will not be exposed to the cement. The sand and the cement on top of it must be
circulated or drilled out to expose the tool for retrieval.
Whenever possible, the bridge plug should be pressure tested after it has been set. This will require a
packer in the string to be set just above the bridge plug for the test. When there is no packer, or a
drillable retainer is used, the bridge plug cannot be isolated for a pressure test.
12.8.1 Squeeze Cementing Tools
Remedial cementing tools are mechanical or hydraulic devices which are used downhole to assist in
the placement of cement during plug back or squeeze cementing operations. They are generally used
to isolate areas of the casing from treating pressures and cement. Some are available in retrievable
or drillable designs, each being suited for a particular set of well conditions. Remedial cementing
tools are generally provided with service. Details of a specific tool operation, or limitations, should be
obtained from the Service Company or manufacturer.
The choice between a retrievable and a drillable squeeze tool largely dependents on well conditions
and squeeze-pressure requirements.
The main advantage of a retrievable squeeze tool over a drillable/ permanent squeeze tool is its
flexibility.
The advantages of retrievable squeeze tools are:
1. Retrievable squeeze tools can be set and released numerous times in one trip.
2. Less rig time if cement is to be drilled out.
3. Downhole corrections can be made.
4. No setting tools employed.
5. Rugged design.
The disadvantages of retrievable squeeze tools are:

1. Non-drillable metals, sour environment susceptible.
2. No flowback control must use fluid pressure.
3. Reversing of excess cement can potentially disturb the squeeze zone.
4. More complicated in nature than drillable tools.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.8.2 Cement Retainers
These tools (Figure 12-25) can be set on wireline, tubing, coiled tubing or slick line. They are placed
above the interval to be squeezed and are drilled out following the waiting on cement (WOC) time.
They should have an internal valve that holds pressure from both directions. Their primary function is
to lock the cement in place during WOC, preventing backflow of cement from the formation or
casing/hole annulus, and preventing feed in of the wellbore fluid. This allows die hole above the
retainer to be wasted clean and tubing pulled before the cement sets.
They are best suited for jobs when:
• Cement slurry may backflow after the squeeze (i.e., placing a column of cement in the
casing/hole annulus or in high-pressure formations).
• Holding squeeze pressure is not obtained and it is desirable to have that stage of cement
set up before trying a second stage.
• Permanently abandoning a zone.
• Weak casing (which can be a problem or either type packer) or other perforations are
nearby.
To set a cement retainer on a wireline, an adapter is used to connect the cement retainer to the
wireline setting tool. The cement retainer is lowered to the proper position and set by electrically
firing a slow burning charge in the setting tool. When the cement retainer is completely packed off,
the setting tool shears free and is retrieved with the wireline. The stinger is connected and run in the
hole with tubing to perform the squeeze. After the tool is set, tubing to allow pumping into the well
below the tool. It is not possible to spot cement. The tool is usually set fairly close to the interval to
be squeezed.
When set on tubing, the cement retainer is connected to a tubing setting tool. The valve is open to
allow the tubing to fill as the cement retainer is lowered. Rotating the tubing to the right releases the
upper slips and initiates pack-off in some models. The tubing is then pulled to complete the pack-off.
When the proper setting tension is achieved, the setting tool shears free. The setting tension may
range from 18,000 lb (9 tons) for 4 ½ in. sizes to 48,000 lb (24 tons) for 9 5/8 in. sizes. The valve is
pushed open by lowering the tubing, and closed by raising the tubing.
Figure 12-25 One Trip Cement Retainer
Baker Hughes K-1 Cement Retainer
Application
The K-1™ cement retainer (Figure 12-26) is the most versatile squeeze tool in the industry. The K-1 is
available in most casing sizes and has an optional sliding valve or flapper valve pressure containment
device. The K-1 can be set on wireline or threaded pipe utilizing Baker Hughes successful line of
setting tools.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
The K-1 cement retainer’s two-way valve is controlled from the surface; no springs to cock or stick;
just pick up to close; set down to open. Maximum clearance for fast running plus improved drilling
ability and pressure ratings make it the right choice. Appendix 12-A (Table 12-5) gives technical
details of K-1 cement retainer.
Features/Benefits
• Tubing or electric line set — can be set by mechanical or hydraulic methods on tubing or drill
pipe or run and set on electric line.
• Faster, safer run-in–run-in speed is up to the operator — Baker Hughes’ locked construction
design and larger clearance make this possible.
• Tests tubing–tubing can be tested before squeezing by picking up to close the valve and
applying pressure.
• Holds final squeeze pressure — automatic closing of the valve when picking up or removal of
stinger, ensures holding the squeeze under final pressure as cement is circulated out.
• Isolates squeeze from hydrostatic pressure — keeping hydrostatic pressure off the zone just
squeezed is important, especially for cementing low-fluid-level wells in batch-squeeze
operations–Baker Hughes’ unique valve guarantees an effective seal.
• Fast drillout–new material specifications developed especially for the K-1 cement retainers
result in faster drillout.
The K-1 cement retainer is available with two different durometer packing elements for oilfield use.
For well temperatures up to 225°F (107.22°C) a 70 Hd packing element can be used. For well
conditions from 100°F (37.78°C) — 400°F (204.44°C) a 90 Hd packing element is recommended.
Figure 12-26 K-1 Baker Hughes cement retainer
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.8.3 Squeeze Packers (Retrievable Packers)
These squeeze tools are run in the well at the end of the tubing. Once the squeeze job is performed,
the tubing and packer are pulled from the hole. The packer can be set and unset several times on a
single trip in the hole, such as when searching for a hole in the casing or when squeezing multiple
intervals. There are other advantages to using a retrievable packer, such as:
• Allowing cement slurry to be spotted (by using tailpipe).
• Permitting excess slurry to be reversed out after the squeeze is obtained.
There are two major limitations of this tool:

• If they are inadvertently stuck in the hole, they are difficult to drill up due to their design.
• A standing squeeze pressure must be obtained and cement mast be firmly held in place
by wellbore hydrostatic pressure before the tubing can be raised or pulled from the well.
This requires sufficient slurry dehydration to form a strong cement filter-cake that will
withstand the swabbing action of pulling the packer up hole, as well as the differential
pressure between reservoir pressure (or annulus fluid) and the head of the fluid inside
the casing.
Tension-type packers are often used in shallow wells (above 600 to 900m). They require downward
movement and rotation for release. So it is better to use compression (set-down) tools, which
require only a straight pick up for release. Tension packers should be reserved for those situations
where the combined tubing weight and annulus pressure are less than the anticipated squeeze or
pump-in pressure.
Generally 4500-8000 kg (10000 to 15000 lb) is the minimum weight or tension required to pack off
the elements of either compression or tension packers.
The detailed technical data for all packer used in OMV Petrom are described in Chapter 5 (Well
Recompletion Best Practice).
12.8.4 Drillable Bridge plug
Halliburton EZ Drill Bridge Plugs (Figure 12-27) are built from cast iron, brass, aluminum, and rubber
to provide unsurpassed drillability in general oilfield service operations. More technical details are
shown in Appendix 12-A (Table 12-7 and Table 12-8).
Operators can use one of the following types of equipment to set EZ Drill Bridge Plugs:
• Electric wireline setting tools,
• Slickline setting tools,
• Coiled tubing setting tools, and
• Mechanical setting tools.
Features and Benefits

• Downhole pressure control and drillability,
• Drill-up with conventional tricone drill bits or junk-style mills,
• Drilling technique and bit choice will affect drilling efficiency, and
• Top drilling.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Figure 12-27 Halliburton Bridge Plug
Baker Hughes N-1 Bridge Plug- Wireline and Mechanical Set

The N-1™ bridge plug (Figure 12-28) is a high performance drillable bridge plug suitable for almost
any temporary or permanent plugging operation. The plug is constructed from selected materials
which provide a combination of strength and drillability. It can be converted to a K-1™ cement
retainer by changing out the guide and replacing the bridging plug with the correct valve assembly.
Features/Benefits
• Easily convertible from wireline set to mechanical set by adding a shear screw and changing
the upper slip
• Swab resistant element design allows faster run-in speed
• Constructed from readily drillable materials to minimize drillout time
Baker Hughes NC-1 Bridge Plug Wireline and Mechanical Set

The NC-1 bridge plug (Figure 12-28), a modified “top venting” N-1, is for use primarily in gas wells.
The design of the bridge plug allows the upper portion of the body and the bridging plug to be drilled
out, permitting pressure equalization across the tool before drilling out the upper slips. A shear ring
mechanism is used in the wireline set to minimize the amount of material to be drilled out by the
center of the drill bit. Detailed technical specification is presented in Appendix 12-A (Table 12-6).
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Packing Element Selection for N-1, and NC-1 Bridge Plugs
The N-1, TV-10, S and NC-1 bridge plugs are available with two different durometer packing elements
for oilfield use. For well temperatures up to 107.22°C (225°F), a 70 Hd packing element can be used.
For well conditions from 37.77°C (100°F) — 204.44°C (400°F), a 90 Hd packing element is
recommended.
Figure 12-28 N-1 and NC-1 Bridge Plugs
12.9 Surface Equipment for Remedial Cementing
Squeeze Manifold
The squeeze manifold (Figure 12-29a) monitors and controls fluid pressure and movement during
squeeze cementing operations. It also puts all the valves and pressure gauges in one place so the
operation can be conducted with good control and communication.
They are rated for a standard pressure range of 0 to 16.000 psi (1100bar). Display resolution is +/- 10
psi with an accuracy of 0.5% of full scale over a temperature range of 14°F to 176°F (-10°C to 80°C).
A tubing swivel (Figure 12-29b) provides a means of rotating the tubing string with the high-pressure
pump discharge line connected to the swivel. This method is primarily used in conjunction with ser-
vice tools where circulating is required or other treatments performed with the treating line
connected (such as setting and releasing packers, opening and closing bypass tools and squeeze
cementing).
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Figure 12-29 a) Squeeze Manifold; b) Tubing Swivel
12.9.1 Mixing Equipment
Cement slurry may be mixed and pumped downhole continuously or semi continuously or it may be
batch-mixed. The mode chosen depends on the application. Continuous mixing refers to mixing and
pumping slurry at the same time. Batch-mixing refers to mixing all of the slurry first and then
pumping.
Figure 12-30 Cement Mixer
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Continuous mixers have been invented to eliminate cutting sacks and mixing by hand. The first of
these mixers was the jet mixer. Later improvements have given mixers such as recirculation mixer.
Continuous mixing sometimes allows cement that is not mixed correctly to be pumped downhole.
Batch-mixing has been designed to prevent this problem. However, batch-mixing requires more
surface equipment, which increases the cost. The latest move is to go back to continuous mixing, but
with computers automating the system to prevent improperly mixed cement from being pumped
downhole.
A typical continuous mixer is shown in Figure 12-30.
12.9.2 Pumping Equipment
Pumping Equipment
Cement is normally pumped with a triplex positive-displacement pump. Triplex pumps are boosted
with centrifugal pumps. Centrifugal pumps impart a great deal of shear to the slurry, which is
beneficial for mixing. Triplex pumps are low shear but pump at high pressures. Sometimes the
displacement pressures for a cement treatment can be several thousand psi and triplex pumps do
quite a good job in these cases. The number of pumps will depend on the required rate and
anticipated pump pressure. A typical mobile pumping unit is shown in Figure 12-31.
Figure 12-31 Pumping Unit
Bulk Equipment
For land operations in areas with existing oil fields, most cement is dry blended with additives that
give cement the required performance properties. The blended cement is hauled to the location,
mixed with water, and pumped downhole. For remote locations and offshore operations, the
additives are normally taken to the well as liquids, mixed with the water, and then mixed with the
cement. When liquid additives are used, the cement mixing equipment is normally equipped with a
liquid additive device that allows accurate metering of liquid additives into the mix water during
cement mixing operations. A typical bulk unit is shown in Figure 12-32.
Figure 12-32 Bulk Equipment
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
12.10 Quality Assurance and Safety Requirements for Remedial Cementing
12.10.1 Remedial Cementing Quality Control and Job Evaluation
The need to evaluate the results of a squeeze job is determined by the requirements of the
subsequent operations to be performed on well. Increased pressure response indicates that a seal
was obtained. This pressure can be applied either by pumping into the well (positive differential into
the well) or by reducing hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore through the use of swabbing or
introducing a lighter fluid into the wellbore (negative differential into the well).
Positive Pressure Test
After the WOC time has elapsed, it is a common practice to test the plugged perforations. However,
this must not be considered as a test of cement ability to hold the formation fluid in place: rather
that the test serves as a method to diagnose a gross failure of the squeeze treatment.
The pressure applied at the face of the perforations is predetermined at the job-design stage. It may
be the reservoir pressure, but should not exceed the formation fracturing pressure.
It is known that mud filter cake would withstand over 5,000 psi (350bar) of differential pressure
when applied from the wellbore toward the formation. Yet the same filter cake cannot withstand a
significant differential pressure when applied from the formation toward the wellbore.
Negative Pressure Test
The universally recognized technique for confirming whether the cement in place will hold the
formation fluids under producing conditions consists of applying a negative differential pressure on
the face of the plugged perforations. The following steps accomplish this:
• Circulating a light fluid (i.e., through a concentric pipe),
• Swabbing the well, and
• Running a dry test.
If sealing achieved in the perforations is complete, no inflow should be recorded on the test pressure
chart.
Acoustic log
When the objective of the squeeze is to repair a primary cementing job, the normal cement bond
logs (CBL) should be run to evaluate the effectiveness of the repair by comparing pre-squeeze and
post-squeeze jobs.
However, traditional cement evaluation using CBL tools and any Ultrasonic tool has severe limitations
when used to evaluate foamed cements. Foamed cement impedance values can be less than those of
annular fluids, such as mud or water. Conventional interpretation of this data might be misleading.
Temperature Profile
The temperature log measures the incremental temperature changes continuously while the tool is
lowered into the hole. This will result in a temperature curve with changes that may indicate
producing or non-producing perforations, cement tops or gaps, casing leaks, or fluid channeling. The
determination of cement tops is the most common use of the temperature survey.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Radioactive tracers
Radioactive materials can be added to the cement slurry while pumping. Then, subsequent tracer
surveys can indicate whether the cement is in the desired interval. Iodine, iridium and scandium (I131,
Ir192 and Sc46) are appropriate because of their short half-lives (8 days, 75 days and 85 days,
respectively). The iridium and scandium radioisotopes are preferable, because iodine (present as
iodide) is soluble and can be squeezed out of the cement with the filtrate.
Cement Quality Control Guidelines
Before sampling the cement, the real starting point for a successful cementing treatment is to
determine accurately the temperature of well bottom-hole. Then use that temperature and calculate
the bottom-hole circulating temperature. Accurate measurement of bottom-hole temperature and
bottom-hole circulating temperature can be the difference in a highly successful cementing
treatment and a complete failure. A matter of 20-30°F (11-22°C) can make a tremendous difference
in thickening time, compressive strength development, and/or the possibility of gas breakthrough of
the cement, negating the cement barrier.
Most cements are designed to be run with a specific amount of water. It is strongly recommended
not to exceed the ranges of the water ratio. If too little water is used, then the cement slurry will be
extremely viscous, and incomplete reaction will occur. If the water ratio is too high, then the cement
ends up very thin, and there will be free water and settling of the cement. Therefore, it is required to
stay within a recommended weight range during cementing operations.
Whatever the mixing system, the most important property of the cement is its density going
downhole. Nothing on the treatment is more critical than the cement density. The density of cement
slurry must be within narrow range (+- several %) of the density designed in the laboratory.
Once the blend has been selected, samples should be taken, mixed, and thickening-time tests
conducted on the cement and additives. After the lab samples have been evaluated and approved,
sample and evaluate field blending.
Recommendations should not necessarily just be accepted from the local salesman on cement in a
particular area. It is recommended to investigate lightweight cements as those created by the
addition of lightweight spheres and additionally, combined with these, new generation thixotropic
additives. There is available from service companies today good, high-compressive cements with
weights as low as 9 lbs/gal (1078.44 kg/m3). If hydraulic fracturing operations, acidizing or other
potentially destructive practices are going to be conducted, then it would be best, if possible at all,
to use very heavy, and conversely high-compressive, cement opposite the producing zone.
A good rule-of-thumb is to utilize across the producing interval as good quality cement as possible. If
acidizing or fracturing operations are going to be conducted and if there is a possibility of channeling,
fracturing, or etching is going to occur, then it is necessary (if possible at all) to utilize cements that
will approach the strength of the formations that they are being used to isolate.
Once the field blend is in place in bulk storage, obtain representative samples for laboratory testing
prior to pumping the cement.
Any loss of circulation needs to be controlled. If the lost circulation is due to fracturing, then redesign
the treatment so the hydrostatic head of cement is less than the fracturing pressure. Solutions to loss
circulation problems involve the use of lightweight additives, lightening the fluid column ahead of the
cement or to foam the cement.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
In every way possible, it is always advisable to accomplish zonal isolation without the use of foam
cement.
With the new microprocessor control systems available, it is absolutely essential that post-job
inventories are done to ensure that all additives have been pumped in the well.
Too light cement, along with the problems of free water and poor compressive strength, can cause
the well to be out of control if you are trying to cement in a balanced state, too heavy cement can
cause high-viscosity problems, poor quality cementing, and could cause the formation to be
fractured.
As in a fracturing treatment, check all bulk storage equipment and chemicals before the job begins.
Check after the treatment to be sure that all the additives that were to be pumped were indeed
used. Many jobs have been conducted where less than one-half of the cement or other additives
were pumped.
Some of the problems are related to the lack of any quality control or supervision of cementing
treatments. Although a great deal of care has been taken in measuring thickening time, compressive
strength of cements prior to the treatment, little or no supervision was done on the job site.
Primarily request is to assure that the cement is the correct weight that all additives are added
correctly, and the pump rates follow the predesigned schedule.
The casing and tubing string should be as internally clean as possible (free of rust, paraffin, scale,
perforation burrs, etc.). Blowout preventers (BOP) should be tested to the maximum expected
pressure.
If squeeze work is to be performed through casing, it is necessary to calculate the internal yield
pressure and joint strength of the easing. If squeezing is to be performed through tubing set inside
the casing, calculations must be made for the tubing and the casing, allowing the collapse resistance
of the tubing.
Since compressive strength is a function of the water/solids ratio, high-density (low water/solids
ratio) slurries are best suited for such plugs. Addition of sand or weighting materials will not improve
the compressive strength of lower water content slurry. On the other hand, lost circulation or plug-
back jobs may require viscous low-density slurries to avoid losing the plug in the formation.
A cement plug is best set in a competent hard rock. Shale should be avoided as it is often caved and
out of gauge. Ideally, the plug should extend from soft shale down to a hard formation. In any case,
the logs and the drilling rate record should be consulted when selecting a location to set a plug.
It is recommended that the slurry pumping time is equal to the anticipated job time plus 30 minutes.
Whenever possible, spacers and washers should be pumped in turbulent flow conditions. If turbulent
flow is not feasible, plug flow spacers are perfectly acceptable
It is recommended that the pipe is carefully centralized. This precaution can dramatically improve
mud removal. Pipe rotation is also cited as an advisable practice.
The slurries must be designed for a thickening time in accordance with well conditions and job
procedures, plus a reasonable safety factor. The recommended practice is that ample waiting on
cement time (WOC) be allocated in the range 12 to 24 hours. Since the well temperature for a
cement plug job is difficult to know accurately, a common practice is to allow longer WOC times.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Slurry densities usual range from 1.87 g/cm3 (15.6 lb/gal) to 2.10 g/cm3 (17.5 lb/gal) is preferable to
ensure good compressive strength development.
Design the cement slurry, optimizing thickening time, compressive strength and free-water content.
Conduct lab testing of the blend, using lab samples at bottomhole temperature and pressure (BHTP)
conditions.
Obtain samples of the field-blend cement and evaluate them at BHTP conditions.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Appendix 12 - A Cement Retainers and Bridge Plugs Specifications (used in

OMV Petrom)
Table 12-5 Baker / Hughes K-1 Cement retainer specification
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Table 12-6 Baker N-1 and NC-1 Bridge Plugs Specification Guide
N-1 AND NC-1 BRIDGE PLUGS SPECIFICATION GUIDE

Casing
Plug OD
OD Weight Size
in mm lb/ft kg/m in mm
4 1/2 * 114.3 9.5-16.6 14.1-24.7 1AA 3.593 91.3
5 127 11.5-20.8 17.1-31.0 1BB 3.937 100.0
5 1/2 139.7 14-23 19.3-34.2 2AA 4.312 109.5
14-26 20.8-38.7 2BB 4.937 125.4
6 152.4
10.5-12 15.6-17.9 3AA 5.410 137.4
6 5/8 168.3 17-34 25.3-50.6 3AA 5.410 137.4
32-44 47.6-65.5 3AA 5.410 137.4
7 177.8
17-35 25.3-52.1 3BB 5.687 144.4
7 5/8 193.7 20-39 29.8-58.0 4AA 6.312 160.3
8 5/8 219.1 24-29 35.7-72.9 5AA 7.125 180.9
9 5/8 244.5 29.3-53.5 43.6-79.6 6AA 8.125 206.3
60.7-81 90.3-120.5 6BB 9.000 228.6
10 3/4 247.6
32.75-60.7 48.7-90.3 7AA 9.437 239.7
60-83 89.3-123.5 7BB 9.937 252.4
11 3/4 298.5
38-60 56.5-89.3 8AA 10.437 265.1
85-102 126.5-151.8 8BB 11.562 293.7
13 3/8 337.7
48-72 74.1-107.1 9AA 12.000 304.8
109-146 162.9-217.2 11AA 13.915 353.4
16 440.4
55-84 81.8-125.0 11BB 14.585 370.5
* N-1: In 4-1/2 in. (114.3 mm ) 9.5 lb (14. 1 kg/m) casing, when a no. 10 setting
tool is not available, a size 20 setting tool and size 2AA adapter
kit may be used when well conditions permit.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Table 12-7 Halliburton EZ drill Bridge Plug Specification Guide
EZ Drill Bridge Plug

Part Number Casing Casing Casing Casing Maximum Minimum
Tool Size Size Size Weight Weight Casing ID Casing ID
in. (mm) in. mm lb/ft kg/m in. (cm) in. (cm)
4 101.60 Line Pipe Line Pipe
100004414 4 1/2 114.30 9.5-13.5 14.1-20.09
803.639 4 3/4 120.65 16 23.81 4.18 (10.62) 3.92 (9.96)
4 1/2 (114.3) 5 127.00 20.3-24.2 30.2-36.01
5 1/2 139.70 36.4 54.16
5 127.00 Line Pipe Line Pipe
100004416
5 1/2 139.70 13.00-23.00 19.34 - 34.22
803.643 5.04 (12.80) 4.67 (11.86)
5 3/4 146.05 22.50-25.20 33.48-37.50
5 1/2 (139.7)
7 177.80 64.1 95.39
6 152.60 Pipe Line Pipe Line
100004417 6 5/8 168.40 17.00 - 24.00 25.29-35.71
803.649 7 177.80 20.00 - 38.00 29.76-56.55 6.46 (16.41) 5.90 (16.99)
7 (177.8) 7 5/8 193.80 45.30 - 55.30 67.41-82.29
7 3/4 196.85 53.52 79.64
Table 12-8 Drill Bridge Plug Operation (Halliburton)
EZ Drill Bridge Plug Operation

Nominal Nominal Maximum Maximum Recommended
Casing Casing Recommended Pressure Differential
Size Size Temperature psi (MPa)
in. mm °F (°C)
Applied Above Applied Below
4 1/2 114.3 425 (218) 10000 (68.95) 7000 (48.26)
5 1/2 139.7 425 (218) 10000 (68.95) 7000 (48.26)
7 177.8 425 (218) 10000 (68.95) 8000 (55.16)
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
List of Figures
Figure 12-1 Depleted zone abandonment,
Figure 12-2 a) Gas Coning; b) Gas Fingering; c) Moving G/O contact,
Figure 12-3 Moving oil/water contact,
Figure 12-4 a) Water coning; b) Water fingering,
Figure 12-5 Zonal isolation Workflow,
Figure 12-6 WF Remedial cementing classification,
Figure 12-7 Low pressure squeezing,
Figure 12-8 Squeezing fractured zones,
Figure 12-9 Probable result of high-pressure cement squeeze job,
Figure 12-10 Cake permeability and dehydration rate of slurry,
Figure 12-11 Cement plug placed by balanced-plug placement method,
Figure 12-12 Cement plug placed by Dump Bailer,
Figure 12-13 Two plug method,
Figure 12-14 Cement plug placement workflow,
Figure 12-15 Braden head placement technique,
Figure 12-16 Squeezing cement through tubing with pressure lower than formation fracturing
pressure,
Figure 12-17 Bridge plug with cement packer,
Figure 12-18 Drillable cement retainer set and/or operated on wireline, tubing or coiled tubing,
Figure 12-19 A typical pressure chart of a hesitation squeeze,
Figure 12-20 Squeeze cementing through tubing, packer or cement retainer,
Figure 12-21 Squeeze cementing through tubing, packer or cement retainer (continuation),
Figure 12-22 Squeeze cementing through tubing, packer or cement retainer (continuation),
Figure 12-23 Isolating of the production interval (one zone),
Figure 12-24 Isolating of the production interval (two or more zones),
Figure 12-25 One Trip Cement Retainer,
Figure 12-26 K-1 Baker Hughes cement retainer,
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
Figure 12-27 Halliburton Bridge Plug,
Figure 12-28 N-1 and NC-1 Bridge Plugs,
Figure 12-29 a) Squeeze Manifold; b) Tubing Swivel,
Figure 12-30 Cement Mixer,
Figure 12-31 Pumping Unit,
Figure 12-32 Bulk Equipment.
List of Tables
Table 12-1 Application of API Classes of Cement,
Table 12-2 Cement properties for various types of squeeze application,
Table 12-3 Cement properties for various types of plug application,
Table 12-4 Remedial cementing planning, designing and executing processes,
Table 12-5 Baker / Hughes K-1 Cement retainer specification,
Table 12-6 Baker N-1 and NC-1 Bridge Plugs Specification Guide,
Table 12-7 Halliburton EZ drill Bridge Plug Specification Guide,
Table 12-8 Drill Bridge Plug Operation (Halliburton).
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
References
1. American Petroleum Institute, Std.API/Petro RP 10B- Recommended Practice for Testing Well
Cement, API Recommended Practice 10B, twenty-Second Edition, December 1977.
2. Erik B. Nelson, Well cementing, Schlumberger Educational Services, Texas 1990.
3. John W. Ely, Stimulation Engineering Handbook Penn Well Publishing Company, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
4. Thomas O. Allen and Alan P. Roberts, Production Operations 2, Well Completions, Workover,
And Stimulation, Four Edition, OGCI and Petro Skills Publications, Tulsa, Oklahoma 2003.
5. W. Gordon Graves, William K. Ott, P.E. and Joe D Woods, Mature Oil & Gas Wells Downhole
Remediation Handbook, 2004 by Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas.
6. Bellarbz Johnathan: Well Completion Design, Elsevir 2009
7. Beach, H., O'Brien, T. and Goins, W.: "Squeeze Cementing Methods and Materials," API Oil
Well Cementing Practices in the United States, New York, 959, pg. 149-159.
8. Bour, D., Creel. P. and Kulakofsky, D.: "Computer Simulation Improves Cement Squeeze
Jobs." SPE 90113,1990.
9. Bradford, B.: "Setting Cement Plugs Requires Careful Planning and Execution for Successful
Cementing Job," Oil & Gas Journal. December 13, 1982, pg. 71-74.
10. Bradford, B. and Reiners. B.: "Analysis Gives Successful Cement Squeeze," Oil & Gas Journal.
April 1, 1985, pg. 71-74.
11. Bradford, B. and Cowan, M.: "Remedial Cementing," API Worldwide Cementing Practices,
First Edition, Jan. 1991. pg. 83-102.
12. Binkley, G., Dumbauld. G. and Collins, R.: -Factors Affecting the Rate of Deposition of Cement
in Unfractured Perforations During Squeeze-Cementing Opera¬ tions," Trans., AIME (1958)
213. pg. 51-58.
13. Farkas, R.. England, K., Roy, M., Dickinson. M., Samuel, M. and Hart, R.: "New Cementing
Technology Cures 40-Year-0ld Squeeze Problems," SPE 56537. SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, October 3-6,1999.
14. Gordon Graves, Willliam K. Ott and Joe D. Woods: Mature Oil & Gas Well Downhole
Remediation-HANDBOOK
15. Heathman. J.: "Advances in Cement Plug Procedures," Journal of Petroleum Technology,
September 1996, pg. 825-831.
16. Heathman, J., Carpenter, R., Sanders. G. and Wedman, M.: "Acid-Resistant Microfine
Squeeze Cement: From Conception to Viable Technology," SPE 26571, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibi¬tion, Houston, TX, October 3-6,1993.
17. Howard, G. and Fast, C: "Squeeze Cementing Operations," Trans., AIME1950,189, pg. 53-64.
18. Hook. F and Ernst, E.: "The Effects of Low-Water- Loss Additives, Squeeze Pressure and
Formation Permeability on the Dehydration Rate of a Squeeze Cementing Slurry," SPE
2455.1969.
19. Kondratoff. L. and Chmilowski. W.: "Evaluation ofFoamed Cement Squeeze Treatments for
Low-Pressure Highly Permeable Formation," CIM. 89-40-81.1989.
20. Meek, J. and Harris, K.: "Repairing Casing Leak Using Small-Particle-Size Cement," SPE 21972,
21. Patton, L. and Abbott, W.: "Well Completions and Workovers, Part 17, Squeeze Cementing -
The Systems Approach," Petroleum Engineer, September 1981. pg. 116-30.
12. ZONAL ISOLATION
22. Purvis, D and St. Clergy, J.: "Eliminating the Unknowns of Primary Cement with On-Site
Verification and Post Job Analysis," SPE 23991, SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery
Conference, Midland, TX, March 18-20,1992.
23. OMV Petrom Internal Documents
• Quality Assurance and Safety Requirements for Remedial Cementing in OMV Petrom.
• RC Selected Best Practices Cases in OMV Petrom
o Detailed technical programs for the wells: l Lipanescu 311, Tazlau 278, Tazlau 113
and Oprisinesti 620, Coltesti 39, 4335, 4336 and 4338 Mamu, 1311
Independenta,
• Remedial Cementing Best Practices Reports (Design and Program, Laboratory test,
control, execution, HO).
• Well/Casing Repair WO Best practices in OMV Petrom (346 Ciuresti S)
24. OMV Completion Operations Manual
25. Specifications for Cements and Materials for Well Cementing, API Spec 10A, 23rd edition,
April 2002.
26. Smith, D.: Cementing, SPE Monograph. Vol. 4, Revised Ed., 1990.
27. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 11-14,1991.
28. Shryock. S. and Slagle, K.: "Problems Related to Squeeze Cementing," Journal of Petroleum
Technology, August 1968, pg. 801-810.
29. Smith, R, Beirute. R. and Holman, G.: "Improved Method of Setting Successful Cement Plugs,"
Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1984, pg. 1897-
30. Teknica : Well Operations: Workovers. Februarz 2001, Course materials
31. Wan Renpu: ADVANCED WELL COMPLETION ENGINEERING. Third Edition, English translation
# 2011, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Workover Best Practices - Petrom - Part 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Workover Best Practices - Petrom - Part 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Workover Best Practices - Petrom - Part 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RO-EP-DA-PO-06-POL-001-02 OMV Petrom Exploration Production

Revision 1 2012 OMV Petrom Workover Best Practices

11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 11-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING

No. Strongly Recommended

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING

No. Strongly Recommended

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING

No. Not Recommended at All

11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING

11.2 Fracturing Stimulation Technology Overview

Fracturing is successfully applied in low to moderate permeability reservoirs, whereby the

Figure 11-1 Fracturing Alter Flow Patterns

Figure 11-2 Performance gap evaluation

 Step 5 - Make production forecast based on material balance, and

Figure 11-3 Candidate selection workflow

Figure 11-4 Individual Zone/Well Evaluation for fracturing

Figure 11-5 Spurt valuation

CfD = Kfwf/Kxf, where:

• Kf- propped fracture permeability (mD),

11.2.3 Hydraulic Fracturing (HDF) Key Technology Parameters

In many applications of hydraulic fracturing it is essential to ascertain, if at all possible, the

𝑃𝑏𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑝 = 𝑃𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑝 + 𝜌𝑓𝑙 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ 𝐻𝑚𝑝 (11-1)

Fracture Gradient (FG) can be calculated using Pbisip as follows:

Figure 11-6 Idealized bottomhole pressure during fracturing job

Figure 11-8 Well lithology and mechanical properties distribution

11.2.4 Fracturing Fluids and Additives Selection

The purpose of fracturing fluids is basically:

Figure 11-9 Fracturing Fluid Selection Workflow

Table 11-1 Proppant pack damage from fracturing fluids

11.2.5 Propping Agent Selection

Fracture permeability is a function of proppant type, proppant concentration, reservoir temperature,

Figure 11-10 Proppant selection workflow

11.2.6 HDF Pre-Job Evaluation Practice in OMV Petrom

Design for proper fracturing operation evaluation

Figure 11-11 Step Rate Test

Rate Step Down Test

Figure 11-12 Rate Step Down Test procedure

Figure 11-13 Improper and proper design of RSDT

The general empirical equation to quantify near-wellbore friction is:

Table 11-2 General guideline based on ranges of FEE component values

Figure 11-15 Step Rate and Step Down test sequences

Figure 11-16 Typical Micro test Data*

*1)Formation Breakdown; 2) Propagation; 3) Instantaneous Shut-In; 4) Closure Pressure from Fall-Off; 5)

Figure 11-17 Typical Micro test Data

Flow Back Test

Figure 11-18 HDF data preparation workflow

MiniFrac data interpretations

Square Root of Total Time/Time Since Shut-in

Figure 11-19 SQRT MiniFrac data analysis

Figure 11-20 G-Function Plot for MiniFrac data analysis

Figure 11-21 Horner plot for MiniFrac data analysis

Figure 11-22 MiniFrac Log-Log Diagnostic plot

11.3 Fracturing Methods Technology Workflow

11.3.1 Propped Fracture Operation Workflow

1. Propped fracturing design elaboration.

Based on computer simulation the best pumping schedule is chosen.

Program has the following main chapters:

• Well and reservoir data.