Frac Packing: Best Practices and Lessons
Learned From More Than 600 Operations
John Weirich, SPE, Jeff Li, SPE, and Tarik Abdelfattah, SPE, Baker Hughes Incorporated; and
Carlos Pedroso, SPE, Petrobras
Summary
Frac packing is a completion technique that merges two distinct
processeshydraulic fracturing and gravel packing. The main
challenge of a frac-pack completion is the successful creation of
high-conductivity fractures with the tip-screenout (TSO) tech-
nique and the placement of proppant within those fractures and in
the annulus between the screen and wellbore wall. This is further
compounded by having to do so in an ultra high-permeability
environment, in which high fluid-leakoff rates are evident.
From 1997 to 2006, job data from more than 600 frac-packing
operations, representing an estimated 5% of the worldwide total,
have been compiled into a database. This paper reviews well in-
formation and key frac-packing parameters. Also summarized are
engineering implementations and challenges, best practices, and
lessons learned. Essential frac-pack design parameters that were
attained from the step-rate test (SRT) and minifrac test are eval-
uated. These include bottomhole pressure, rock-closure time, and
fracturing-fluid efficiency. Downhole pressure and temperature
are also discussed because of their importance to the post-comple-
tion efficiency evaluation and fracturing-fluid-optimization phase.
Worldwide case histories are provided that demonstrate how
to both deploy different frac-packing systems and pack the well-
bore during extreme conditions with improved packing efficiency
and a higher chance of success.
Introduction
Deepwater exploration and production has developed during the
last 2 decades. There is a broadening of the geographic regions for
deepwater completions (Fig. 1). The vast majority of deepwater
reserves are concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), west
Africa, Brazil, North Sea, and southeastern Asia. The potential to
achieve significantly higher sustainable production rates, well lon-
gevity, and cost reduction has been the primary driver for pursuing
most deepwater completions. There have been many different
types of completions in deep water, with frac packs and openhole
horizontal completions emerging as the two dominant types (Vit-
thal 2003). The type of application that was used has been found to
be area-dependent. In Brazil, the dominant completion type is
openhole horizontal gravel packing (OHHGP), which is shown in
Fig. 2a. In the GOM, 70% of completions are frac packs, which is
illustrated by Fig. 2b. In west Africa both openhole completions
and frac packs are used. In general, frac packing has resulted in im-
proved flow efficiency and has exhibited lower failure rates than
other sand-control methods (Vitthal 2003; Norman 2004). McLarty
and DeBonis (1995), Tiner et al. (1996), and Ott and Woods (2003)
provide a good overview of the technology development for frac
packing and other sand-control methodologies.
Frac-packing treatments are often applied to formations in
which vertical permeability limits the application of horizontal
wells or wells with multiple target zones behind the casing. The
production zones often feature high permeability and, in turn,
high fluid-leakoff rates. In some cases, there may be two or more
highly permeable zones that are separated by a shale zone.
Copyright V
C 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 147419) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and
Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, USA, 2021 June 2012, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 19 March 2012. Revised manuscript
received for review 31 October 2012. Paper peer approved 19 November 2012.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
With the use of a TSO fracture technique to control fracture
volume, length/height/width control is a key objective of frac
packing. The TSO technique is necessary to generate fracture
width in higher-permeability environments greater than 50 md.
Coupled with the TSO method is a properly designed pumping
schedule that allows one to achieve an optimized fracture prop-
pant-concentration profile and to gravel pack the casing/screen
annulus in a single pumping operation. The frac-packing process
must be executed to combine TSO-fracturing and viscous-fluid
gravel-packing technologies to be successful in terms of comple-
tion reliability and economics.
TSO fracture treatments are applied to bypass near-wellbore
damage, to provide vertical connection of laminated sands, and to
stimulate low-permeability reservoirs. In high-permeability reser-
voirs, short fracture lengths of several feet could bypass near-
wellbore damage that is caused by drilling fluids, perforating de-
bris, fluid-loss pills, and completion-fluid losses. TSO fracture
treatments also may be used to create longer fracture lengths to
stimulate lower-permeability reservoirs or to create higher frac-
ture heights.
Deepwater frac packs provide additional challenges to the
completion engineer because of the higher rig costs and larger
work-string volumes. These are combined with the challenges of
fluid cool-down and achieving proper prediction of fluid perform-
ance (Malochee and Comeaux 2003) and work-string length
changes.
The frac-packing process is often conducted initially with an
SRT and a minifrac test, which are then followed by the main
proppant fracture treatment and gravel-pack operation. The pur-
pose of the minifrac is to determine bottomhole treating pressure,
fracture-closure pressure and time, fluid efficiency, and leakoff
coefficient. The SRT data can also be used to predict the fracture-
extension and closure pressure, which may be confirmed by the
minifrac test. The initial fracture design, derived from simulation,
is then recalibrated with the minifrac-test results. The recalibrated
model is then used to generate a revised proppant-fracturing
pump schedule for the main treatment.
Unconsolidated-sand formations require high-quality pressure
data because of large variations of permeability and rock proper-
ties. The analysis of surface-pressure data (pumping pressure)
does not always provide an accurate determination of closure
pressure, closure time, leakoff coefficient, and fluid efficiency for
cases with high leakoff and fast closure times (Neumann et al.
2002). However, live-annulus pressure readings will provide an
accurate estimation of the aforementioned parameters (Holcomb
et al. 2002; Neumann et al. 2002; Hale et al. 2004).
Well information and key frac-packing parameters reviewed in
this paper are derived from frac-packing jobs completed between
1997 and 2006. Best practices, lessons learned, engineering im-
plementations, and challenges related to the frac-packing process
are also summarized. Field cases are provided, demonstrating
how to deploy different advanced frac-packing systems and how
to pack the wellbore during extreme conditions with improved
packing efficiency.
Frac-Packing Downhole Tools and Procedure
Deepwater completions have constantly challenged placement
design. Pumping rates have been increased to handle longer treat-
ment intervals or to maximize proppant placement. Therefore,
119

North America
Latin America
Fig. 1Global deepwater-completion areas with sand control.
frac-packing service tools must be designed to meet such high
rates and high-pressure pumping demands. The downhole frac-
packing assembly should be developed to minimize or eliminate
fluid loss post-treatment, reduce risk through the simplicity of
use, increase reliability, provide redundancy and contingency
planning, and reduce completion-cycle time.
Single-Trip, Single-Zone Frac-Packing System. As shown in
Fig. 3, a typical downhole assembly for frac packing consists of a
sump packer, seal assembly, gravel-pack screen, blank pipe, wash
pipe, shear safety joint, crossover tool, gravel-pack packer, and
hydraulic setting tool.
The sump packer establishes the bottom base and provides the
depth correlation. It is set 10 ft below the lowest perforation and
is usually set on wireline. The blank-pipe section connects the
gravel-pack screen to the gravel-pack extension and provides a
reservoir of gravel-pack sand above the screen, thus ensuring
screen coverage in the event of pack settling. Both screen and
blank pipe need to be centralized for even gravel distribution in
the annulus. The wash pipe is internal to the screen and blank
pipe, and it serves to create a flow path at the bottom of the screen
during sand placement. The shear safety joint is between the blank
HRWP, 1.7%
SAS, 2.8%
CHGP, 15.4%
ESS, 1.0%
OHHGP, 49.3%
Frac-packing, 29.8%
(a)
Total job # = 444
OHHGP,
8.6%
HWRP,
19.6%
Frac-packing, 71.8%
(b)
Fig. 2(a) Percentage of various sand-control completions in
Campos basin; (b) percentage of various sand-control comple-
tions in GOM.
120
Europe
Africa, ME& Far East
pipe and the gravel-pack packer assembly and below the sealbore
extension. It allows for the emergency retrieval of the gravel-pack
packer without pulling the screen assembly.
The crossover tool alternates the flow paths during gravel-
packing operations. It allows fluids pumped down the work string
to cross over to the screen/casing annulus below the packer and
be squeezed to the formation. In circulation mode, the crossover
tool allows return fluid to flow up the washpipe from below the
gravel-pack packer and cross over to the work-string/casing
annulus above the gravel-pack packer.
Various downhole frac-packing assemblies have been devel-
oped that depend on the completion procedure. The following sec-
tion briefly introduces several completion systems.
Single-Trip, Single-Zone Perforating/Frac-Packing System.
This system allows for a combined one-trip perforating and frac-
packing operation that is aimed at minimizing completion time
and improving productivity. The perforating and frac-packing
tools are run in the hole in a single trip with guns positioned on
target depth. At post-detonation, the tool string is repositioned to
place the screens opposite the perforations, and remaining opera-
tions are carried out as they would be for a single-trip, single-zone
system.
Single-Trip, Multizone Frac-Packing System. This system pro-
vides the ability to frac pack multiple zones in a single trip with
complete zonal isolation before and after treatment. In addition,
it provides the ability to provide selective or commingled
production.
Each zone contains isolated gravel-pack screens with integral
production sliding sleeves, a frac-packing sleeve for placing prop-
pant, and an isolation packer. The equipment for all zones is
assembled at the rig floor, and then a single gravel-pack service
tool is installed below the lowermost screened interval and con-
nected through a concentric inner work string to the primary work
string above the top production packer. The entire assembly is
now run into the wellbore in a single trip. The service tool con-
tains shifting tools that will selectively open or close the produc-
tion sliding sleeves and frac-packing sleeves in each zone, thus
allowing selective zonal isolation, treatment, or production.
Computer Simulator for Frac Packing
Because of the complexity and challenges of frac packing, the
ability to successfully model the TSO fracture volume and geo-
metric shape and to design a proppant schedule to achieve an
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion

Circulation Squeeze
Fig. 3Basic components of downhole assembly for frac pack.
optimized fracture proppant-concentration profile is intricate. To
address these issues, a computer simulator is used. Constant
changes in simulation-input parameters occur because of data
gathering. Data are usually collected from field tests, such as a
minifrac test, and on-site gauge readings. The simulation is then
calibrated to provide a more accurate estimation of overall frac-
packing pumping volume, individual stage volumes, and fracture-
growth behavior. Parameters that are accounted for include
 Stress gradient
 Rock properties
 Permeability and porosity
 Reservoir pressure
 Leakoff coefficient
 Fluid properties
 Wellbore configurations
Several software packages that assist in the design and execu-
tion of sand treatments are available in the industry (Ott and
Woods 2003). These software packages have several modules that
perform various functions. Some of these functions are intended
to
 Calculate various engineering parameters
 Simulate hydraulic-fracturing treatment
 Simulate the gravel-packing displacement in three dimensions
 Consider the surface equipment, work string, downhole sand-
control assembly, and wellbore geometry/profile to conduct the
hydraulic calculation
 Convert surface-treatment conditions to bottomhole conditions
 Allow users to analyze the minifrac and SRT results to deter-
mine the fracture-closure pressure, fracture geometry, and fluid-
leakoff coefficient
 Present log data to identify treated layers and zones.
The simulator is a powerful analytical tool that can characterize
the physical phenomena of frac packing while considering down-
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
Workstring, conveys assembly to bottom of wellbore
Hydraulic Setting Tool, Tubing Pressure Actuated,
Provides compressive force to set packer
Retrievable Seal Bore Packer/Gravel Pack Packer,
seals top of GP assembly to casing ID
Crossover Tool, Diverts slurry from tubing
above GP packer to Casing Screen annulus below,
Provides alternate path for washpipeflow below the
GP packer to casing workstringannulus above
Shear Safety Joint,
provides straight Pull disconnect for remedial operations
Washpipe provides a path for fluid circulation to the
bottom of the screened interval
Blank Pipe, provides area for
gravel reservoir between top of screen & slurry exit ports
Gravel Pack Screen, Filters out gravel pack media
Sump Packer Seal Assembly, seals bottom of
screen assembly into sump packer
Sump Packer Permanent Seal Bore,
seals bottom of screen to casing ID
hole conditions. Its use results in better design, execution, and
post-treatment evaluation of the frac pack.
Overview of Frac-Packing Operations
Between 1997 and 2006, job data from more than 600 frac-pack-
ing operations were compiled into a database. The data include
well details, reservoir data, formation-stress gradient, fracture
toughness, frac-packing pumping parameters, post-job reports,
and job-problem reports. Well information and key frac-packing
parameters from the database mentioned previously are illustrated
in Figs. 4 through 13.
Frac-pack completions generally have a much deeper envelope
than OHHGP. The latest well- depth world record for a frac pack
in an extended well was recorded at a total measured depth
(TMD) of 30,880 ft and a total vertical depth (TVD) of 11,591 ft.
The depth envelope for frac packing is plotted in Fig. 4.
Figs. 5 and 6, respectively, plot the well-completion depth at
the top of perforation and the wellbore-deviation angle in both the
GOM and Campos basin for three different sand-control methods
[high-rate water pack (HRWP), openhole gravel pack (OHGP),
and frac pack]. There is no significant difference in terms of well
vertical depth and deviation angles among the three different sand-
control methods for the majority of wells. The deepest wellbore is
approximately 27,000 ft for frac packing. The reservoir pressure
gradient in the GOM is relatively low and is less than 0.5 psi/ft for
the majority of the completed wells (Fig. 7). It is necessary to pack
such wells fully across the production intervals at a high pump rate.
The typical wellbore construction for the three different
gravel-packing completions in the GOM is usually composed of
5-, 5 1/2-, 7-, 7 5/8-, or 9 5/8-in. production casing (Fig. 8). The
formation-stress gradient is depicted in Fig. 9, showing an average
value of 0.79 psi/ft. The fracture toughness is between 800 and
121
 0
OHHGP Envelope
(Farias et al. 2007)

5000

10000 GOM (Pourciau 2007)

GOM (Gillespie et al. 2005)

15000 Gravel-pack from GOM

TVD, ft

HWRP from GOM

20000 Frac-pack from GOM

GOM (Van Sickle et al. 2006)

Gulf of Guinea (Cipolla et al. 2005) Frac pack Envelope

25000
Bohai Bay (Vickery et al. 2004)

Bohai Bay (Liu et al. 2006)

30000
GOM (Ogier et al. 2011)

Frac-pack from Campos Basin

35000
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
TMD, ft

Fig. 4Frac-packing depth envelope across the world.

10,000 psi/in.0.5 (Fig. 10). For the majority of the wells, the frac-
ture toughness is 1,200 psi/in.0.5. The typical fluid-leakoff co-
efficients range from 0.006 to 0.03 ft/min0.5 for sand and 0 to
0.004 ft/min0.5 for shale sand. However, the fluid-leakoff coeffi-
cients are varied (Fig. 11).
As Fig. 12 illustrates, pump rates for OHHGP and HRWP are
much lower than those for frac packing. Pump rates for such
applications are generally less than 10 bbl/min. In contrast, pump
rates for frac packs can reach as high as 40 bbl/min. In the GOM,
pump rates are between 15 and 40 bbl/min, with an average pump
rate of approximately 15 bbl/min. In the Campos basin, pump
rates are 10 to 40 bbl/min, with an average pump rate of approxi-
mately 25 bbl/min. The frac-packing application envelope is con-
stantly being enlarged in terms of pump rate and proppant volume.
Today, pumping jobs at rates of 30 to 50 bbl/min with 100,000 to
300,000 lbm of proppant are common.
The pack factor or packed-proppant mass per linear measure-
ment depth is less than 100 lbm/ft measured depth (MD) for
OHHGP and HRWP methods. However, the average pack factor
in frac packing is approximately 640 lbm/ft MD in the GOM and
1,120 lbm/ft in the Campos basin (Fig. 13). This indicates that the
conductivity in frac-pack wells is higher than that in wells with an
OHHGP or HRWP completion.
Fig. 14 shows the skin factors for the three different sand-con-
trol methods. In the GOM, the average skin factor for frac packing
with underbalanced perforating is 0.44, whereas the same parame-
ter has an average of 2.9 in wells with overbalanced perforating.
Because the skin factor is not a linear parameter, it is converted to
the flow efficiency with a simple correlation between the skin fac-
tor and the flow efficiency [efficiency 7/(7 skin)]. After the
skin factor is converted to the flow efficiency, the averaged flow
efficiency is then converted back to the skin factor. The average

30000
Frac-packing
OHHGP

Frac-packing
HRWP

25000

GOM operation Campos Basin

Vertical depth@ top perf, ft

operation
20000

15000

10000

5000

0
2
26
50
74
98
2
6
0
4
8
2
6
0
4
8
2
6
0
4
8
2
6
0
4
12
14
17
19
21
24
26
29
31
33
36
38
41
43
45
48
50
53
55

Job #

Fig. 5Vertical depth at the top of perforation for different sand-control completions.

122 June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion

 100

Frac-packing
Frac-packing
OHHGP

HRWP
90

80 GOM operation
Campos Basin
operation

70

Deviation angle, o
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
25
49
73
97
1

12
14
16
19
21
24
26
28
31
33
36
38
40
43
45
48
50
52
55
Job #

Fig. 6Wellbore-deviation angle for various sand-control completions.

skin factors shown in Fig. 14 were calculated with the aforemen-
tioned method. This indicates that perforations conducted with
underbalanced conditions could improve well production. How-
ever, individually, some wells with underbalanced perforating are
still estimated to have skin factors that are higher than those in
wells with overbalanced perforating. More data are required to
show that underbalanced perforating is better than overbalanced
perforating in frac-pack operations for well productivity (Neu-
mann et al. 2002; Pourciau et al. 2005). The average skin factor
for OHHGP is 6.4; for HRWP and frac packing, it is 2.8 and 0.74,
respectively. This indicates that frac packing has a higher comple-
tion efficiency than the other two methods, and that OHHGP has
the lowest completion efficiency among these cases. Similarly, in
the Campos casin, the averaged skin factors are 2.4, 2.1, and 24.1
for HRWP, frac packing, and OHHGP, respectively. As men-
tioned in the Introduction, TSO fracture treatments applied in the
frac-packing process could bypass near-wellbore damage that was
caused by drilling fluids, perforating debris, fluid-loss pills, and
completion-fluid losses. Therefore, the frac packing could result
in a lower skin factor. Thousands of successful frac-packing jobs
have been completed across the world with enhanced packing
technology and optimized through computer simulations. How-
ever, every job has its challenges. Typical challenges and lessons
learned in frac-packing operations are discussed in the following
four subsections.
Case Number 1Single-Trip, Multizone Frac Packing in
Indonesia. In the Mahakham delta of Indonesia, wells are in rela-
tively shallow waters at a depth of 200 to 260 ft to seabed. With
five zones to be completed, installing conventional gravel-pack

1.8
Frac-packing
OHHGP

HRWP

1.6
Reservoir pressure, psi/ft TVD @ perf

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
1

3
25

49

73

97
1

12

14

16

19

21

24

26

28

31

33

36

38

40

43

Job #

Fig. 7Reservoir-pressure gradient for various sand-control completions in the GOM.

June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion 123

 16

OHHGP
14
HRWP

12 Frac-packing

Case size, in 10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Job #

Fig. 8Caseing size for various sand-control completions in the GOM.

completions would consume up to 30 rig days. To reduce the
cost, the operator applied the single-trip, multizone frac-packing
technology (Banman et al. 2008). In the case to be discussed, a
9 5/8  3 3/4-in. single-trip, multizone system was selected for
the well completion. Since 2005, more than 20 wells were com-
pleted with this technology. The longest bottomhole-assembly
(BHA) length was 3,563 ft, completing up to six zones in one trip.
A trip is defined in this paper as a work string with any
BHA running in and pulling out of the hole. An electric-line (EL)
trip is defined as one-half of a trip. For a typical five-zone stack-
pack operation, described by Banman et al. (2008) and Suryanada
et al. (2010), 14.5 trips are needed with the service string, whereas
only 3.5 trips are needed with the single-trip, multizone system.
Fig. 15 shows the completion time per treated zone and the
nonproductive time (NPT) related to the single-trip, multizone
system. The relative NPT is defined as the percentage of total
NPT during the total completion time. The average completion
time per treated zone is approximately 29 hours. The total com-
pletion time is defined as the duration between deploying the
sump packer with EL and laying down the service tools on the rig
floor. For the analyzed jobs in this paper, 69 days were taken to
complete a total of 60 zones with the single-trip, multizone sand-
control system. When compared with the conventional stacked
sand-control operation, 140 rig days (67%) were saved, resulting
in significant cost saving.
A few lessons were learned during the frac packing of these
wells. In the early stage, to complete one of the wells, the operator
noticed that the debris plugged the holes around the hollow-steel
carrier when deploying large and long tubing-conveyed perforat-
ing (TCP) guns. Computer modeling predicted that the TCP as-
sembly run in this well would create an underbalanced condition
inside of the hollow-steel carrier resulting from the displacement

1.2

1.0

0.8
Stress gradient, psi/ft

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
384 327 369 402 444
Job #

Fig. 9Formation-stress gradient for frac packing in the GOM.

124 June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion

 10000

8000

Fracture toughness, psi/in0.5

6000

4000

2000

0
126 150 174 198 222 246 270 294 318 342 366 390 414 438
Job #

Fig. 10Fracture toughness for frac packing in the GOM.

of the air with the completion liquid. To reduce the risks associ-
ated with this dynamic process, the completion fluid is now circu-
lated into the casing annulus inlet and circulated out through the
casing annulus outlet while the TCP guns are deployed. The oper-
ator now uses this method as a standard procedure to avoid plug-
ging the hollow-steel carrier. In addition, to mitigate formation
influx and potential well-control issues resulting from detonation
dynamics and resultant fluid displacements, the work string is
reciprocated immediately after the guns are fired. Also, conduct-
ing a dynamic two-phase-flow analysis is a standard procedure to
ensure that this dynamic underbalanced condition is manageable.
Managing debris and keeping the hole clean during all stages
of the frac-packing process are crucial to completing the well suc-
cessfully and minimizing NPT. As discussed previously, the de-
bris could plug the hollow-steel carrier if the hole is not clean. In
addition, long TCP guns could generate considerable steel debris
after firing (Banman et al. 2008). Cleaning this debris with a dedi-
cated tool is essential to ensure that subsequent operations are
trouble-free. A scraper tool combined with a downhole-debris
magnetic tool, which is shown in Fig. 16, could be used to clean
this type of debris. Sometimes, junk baskets are used to clean
large rock chips, blowout preventers (BOP) annular-bag rubber,
and metal chips. Debris could also cause the downhole service
tools and seals to malfunction, resulting in higher NPT. In one
frac-packing completion, damage to the service-tool collets was
observed, which led to unexpected downtime. Subsequent slick-
line operations revealed BOP annular-bag rubber debris, which
was left during the drilling stage. As a result, the annular bags are

0.35

For sand
0.3 For shale sand
Campos Basin
operation
Fluid leakoff coefficient, ft/min0.5

0.25 GOM operation

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Job #

Fig. 11Fluid-leakoff coefficients for frac packing.

June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion 125

 50

Frac-packing
OHHGP

Frac-packing
HRWP
45

40
Campos Basin
35 GOM operation operation

Pump rate, BPM 30

25

20

15

10

0
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
25
49
73
97
1

12
14
16
19
21
24
26
28
31
33
36
38
40
43
45
48
50
52
55
57
Job #

Fig. 12Pump rate for various sand-control completions.

replaced for each single-trip, multizone completion as a standard
procedure. Higher NPT with both Well 6 and Well 9 (Fig. 15)
was a result of downhole debris.
As discussed by Banman et al. (2008) and Suryanada et al.
(2010), the shearable safety joint above the isolation packer was
separated resulting from shrinkage of the blank pipe in a long
treated interval. A study indicated that the shearable safety joint
parted because the completion fluid cools the assembly, causing
shrinkage of the blank pipe; when combined with the effects of
differential pressure, the joint separated. To remediate this for
subsequent well completions, an extra isolation system is used in
a long zone. Tubing movement and force analysis are conducted
as a standard procedure to evaluate the temperature-change effect
on the BHA length and to determine whether an extra isolation
system is needed.
In summary, after experiences with the first two wells, the
overall NPT dropped from 40 to 7%. As shown in Fig. 15, the ma-
jority of NPT in the first well completion was associated with
pulling the service tool to the surface. In the second well, the ma-
jority of NPT was caused by the shearable safety-joint separation
and subsequent remediation. The additional NPT in both Well 6
and Well 9 was caused by downhole debris.
Case Number 2Single-Trip, Multizone Frac Packing in
India. This case study discusses two vertical offshore wells in
the Bay of Bengal, India. The water depth is approximately 2,300
ft. The wells were drilled and completed with a 9 5/8-in. casing
with the single-trip, multizone system. The system was intended
to frac pack five zones with a total BHA length of approximately
1,100 ft. The single-trip, multizone completion schematic for one

7000
Frac-packing
OHHGP

HRWP

6000
Campos Basin
GOM operation operation
5000
Pack factor, lbm/ft MD

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
25
49
73
97
1

12
14
16
19
21
24
26
28
31
33
36
38
40
43
45
48
50
52
55
57

Job #

Fig. 13Packed-proppant mass for various sand-control completions.

126 June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion

 Campos Basin
GOM Operation Operation
90
Underbalanced perforation
Frac-packing
80
OHHGP HRWP
Overbalanced perforation OHHGP
70
Averaged skin = 6.4 HRWP
Frac-packing
60
Averaged skin = 2.9 with Averaged skin = 2.8
overbalanced perforation Averaged skin = 24.1
50
Skin factor

40 Averaged skin = 2.4

Averaged skin = 0.44 with
underbalanced perforation Averaged skin = 2.1
30

20

10

0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171 181 191 201 211

10
Well number

Fig. 14Skin factor with various perforation conditions.

(Data were compiled from Hannah et al. 1994; Petit et al. 1995; Stewart et al. 1995; Neumann et al. 2002; Ott and Woods 2003; and Pourciau
et al. 2005.)

of the wells is shown in Fig. 17. The detailed operation informa-

tion is summarized by Joseph (2010).
It is very interesting to compare the challenges and lessons
learned between this case and Case Number 1, because both use a
similar system.
 At the time, this project involved the largest amount of sand
pumped into a single zone with a single-trip, multizone system:
148,000 lbm of sand at a pump rate of 45 bbl/min. In addition, a
total of 260,000 lbm of 16/20 sand was pumped in the five zones
of Well 2.
 Wellbore debris caused the frac sleeve to malfunction when
treating Zone 3 of Well 1. The same problem occurred when treat-
Brush
ing Zone 1 of Well 2. Both incidents resulted in extra remediation

140
Completion time (Hours/zone), NPT, %

120 Completion time

NPT
100

80 Magnet

60

40 Stablizer
20

0 Bit
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Well

Fig. 15Completion time and NPT analysis for select single-

trip, multiple-zone completions in Indonesia. Fig. 16Well-cleaning BHA in Indonesia.

June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion 127

 Depths are bottom of equipment Depth
Description
unless specified otherwise (mBRT)

CIW - SSMC Tubing Hanger

4.1/2" Tubing

1825.59 9-5/8" Packer

1835.02 Isolation Packer

Zone 1 Wire wrap screen

1888.37 Isolation Packer

Wire wrap screen

Zone 2

2027.37 Isolation Packer

Wire wrap screen

Zone 3
2076.64 Isolation Packer

Wire wrap screen

Zone 4

2125.46 Isolation Packer

Wire wrap screen

Zone 5
2160.22 Sump packer w/ Seal Locator Assy

Indexing Muleshoe

Fig. 17Schematic of single-trip, multiple-zone completion in India.

trips. The NPT exceeded 40% for both operations, caused by sig-
nificant wellbore debris, frac-sleeve malfunction, and downhole
leaks. This is very similar to the NPT in Case Number 1 for the
first two wells operation caused by the learning-curve period.
After the learning-curve period, NPT could be reduced
significantly.
 Case Studies 1 and 2 indicate that wellbore-debris cleaning,
leak diagnosis, and associated contingency planning are critical
aspects to the success of a single-trip, multizone operation.
 Pressure and temperature downhole memory gauges were in-
stalled in the service tool for these two wells. Information
obtained was valuable for the post-job analysis, helping identify
the TSO and net pressure, and for evaluation of the frac-packing
design. Furthermore, a tracer log was performed to identify frac
geometries and to help further calibrate the frac simulation.
Case Number 3Two-Zone Stack Frac Packing in GOM. A
deviated well on the continental shelf of the GOM (with a 54-ft
water depth) was drilled and completed with 5-in. casing. The
total MD of the well was 10,650 ft. There were two perforated
zones at 10,372 to 10,434 ft (62 ft) and 10,256 to 10,296 ft (40 ft).

128 June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion

 10170' Packer
10199' Shear-out Safety Joint
10246' Screen
10284' Screen
10304' Isolation Packer
10333' Shear-out Safety Joint
10366' Gravel Pack Screen
10386' Gravel Pack Screen
10424' SUMP Packer
Fig. 18Two-zone stack frac pack in the GOM.

Both intervals were within a 45 -deviation angle. The operator
decided to use the conventional stack frac-packing technology to
perforate and frac pack in those intervals. The completion sche-
matic is shown in Fig. 18.
The sump packer was deployed with an EL and set at 10,431
ft. The perforation guns were deployed with a wireline to perfo-
rate the lower zone. The guns were stuck a few times, which
resulted in extra fishing trips and a setting bull-plug trip. After the
guns finally fired, a separate hole-cleaning trip was made. Subse-
quently, acid was spotted and squeezed into the formation. The
minifrac and SRT were conducted. With these calibration tests,
the main frac-packing treatment was redesigned and executed
according to plan. The TSO was achieved.
For the top interval, the operator decided to use a TCP method
to deploy the perforation guns, eliminating the problems encoun-
tered on the lower zone when the guns were deployed on wireline.
After the well was cleaned with a 2 7/8-in. work string, the frac-
pack BHA was run in hole. Subsequently, acid was spotted and
squeezed into the formation, and the minifrac and SRT were per-
formed. The frac pack was bullheaded from the surface. The sec-
ond interval treatment took a total of 46 hours. The lower-zone
treatment took 52 hours. On average, 49 hours per zone was taken
to treat each interval. As a comparison, in Case Study Number 1,
it took 29 hours per zone in the wells with relatively similar depth
(approximately 10,000 ft), but five zones were treated in a single
trip.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
Case Number 4Three-Zone Frac Packing in Campos Basin.
The Roncador field, a giant ultradeepwater field discovered in
1996, is in Campos basin, Brazil, 115 km from Rio de Janeiro.
The extent of the field was approximately 111 km2 with water
depths ranging from 1500 to 2000 m. Because of its large exten-
sion, high volume of oil in place (3.3 billion bbl of proven
reserves), different fluid properties, and variations in geological
characteristics, the development strategy was phased in four
modules.
Module 1A started production in 2002 with 12 wells (9 pro-
ducers and 3 injectors). At the end of 2007, the second phase of
Module 1A and Module 2 started production through 29 wells (18
producers and 11 injectors). Module 3 will produce from 17 long
horizontal wells (11 producers and 6 injectors).
Roncadors main reservoirs are unconsolidated turbidity sand-
stones from the Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian), thus demand-
ing a sand-control method to be produced. These main reservoirs
are divided into two areas, separated by a massive fault. The dep-
ositional model has been interpreted as a complex turbidity sys-
tem, mainly represented by channels, lobes, and over bank faces.
The hanging wall block (Module 1A) has a net thickness of 240 m
in stratified sandstones, which was the main reason for develop-
ment with vertical/deviated multiple-completion wells. In contrast,
the footwall block has been characterized by a single sandstone
with no stratification, which was the main reason for development
with horizontal wells. The wells had lateral lengths ranging from
500 to 1000 m.
The Maastrichtian reservoirs (which are locally named Ronca-
dor Sandstones) are subdivided into three main hydraulically dis-
tinct stratigraphic intervals, referred to as Roncador 2, 3, and 4.
These three intervals have different permeabilities and fluid vis-
cosities and, therefore, different mobilities. Furthermore, the
enhanced-oil-recovery method for this module is water injection.
Because of these factors, the module was expected to have differ-
ent water-breakthrough times for each interval. This is the main
reason that the hanging wall block of Roncador field was devel-
oped with three selective stacked frac packs. In fact, the need for
this selectivity pushed the development of this technology that
was first used in 1999 (Rovina et al. 2000).
The shale separating the lower (Roncador 4) and middle inter-
val (Roncador 3) was less than 7 m long (Fig. 19a) in MD (5-m
TVD), posing a risk of possible communication between the inter-
vals if hydraulic fracturing was to be performed. This was con-
firmed by simulation. If the fractures were to communicate, all the
efforts to develop and install a selective completion in Roncador
wells (in both producers and injectors) would have been inefficient.
The use of radioactive tracers was not allowed by the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency and, therefore, to confirm this hypothesis, a
temperature log was used to identify the fracture height.
In general terms, the new sequence was to run a base tempera-
ture log, perform a minifrac with the same volume expected in the
main treatment pad, repeat the temperature-log run to identify the
fracture height, and then decide between either continuing with a
frac pack or dropping the sand-control method to an HRWP, thus
preserving selectivity.
Fig. 19b shows one example of the temperature-log interpreta-
tion. The graph displays the perforations (the thick red bar), and,
on the right side, the temperature inflections (dash lines and dot
lines) show a very well-defined top and bottom of the fracture. The
fracture is on the limits of the perforations. Both upper and lower
shales, identified by gamma ray and neutron-density logs, were
able to restrict fracture growth. Also, the shale in the middle of the
perforations did not impose any restriction to fracture growth.
This procedure was repeated in three wells, showing similar
results. This indicated that the top and bottom shales were stiff
enough to contain the fracture propagation.
An interesting point to be observed is that the amount of fluid
injected, which can be inferred from the cooling effects read in
the temperature log, along the perforated interval during the cali-
bration tests shows a good correlation with the permeability pro-
file obtained with the nuclear-magnetic-resonance log. In this
129

(a)
Fig. 19Multilogs information before and after the calibration test for Campos basin operation. (a) Gamma ray and neutron-
density logs before the calibration test; (b) temperature logs after the calibration test.
case, the better permeability was read at the bottom of the inter-
val, where more fluid was injected. However, because this
sequence added 60 hours to the normal procedure, it became a
special procedure, applied only when specific information about
the fracture-height propagation was necessary.
Best Practices From Field Cases for
the Frac-Packing Process
Although it is important to effectively prevent sand production, it
is equally important to do so in a way that does not hinder produc-
tivity. The feasibility and success of frac packing a well depend
on wellbore cleanup, completion fluids, completion tools and
equipment, proppant and screen selection, work-string design,
perforation, software/simulators, sand-control design/execution
and post-treatment evaluation, and field-personnel experience.
The best practices for frac packing are summarized in the follow-
ing sections.
Completion Fluid
 Mechanical plugging is the most common cause of forma-
tion-permeability damage. To minimize its effect, clean fluids
must be used during drilling-fluid displacement, perforating, well-
bore cleaning, and frac-pack treatment.
 Dedicated filtration equipment must be used to filter the com-
pletion fluids before pumping them into the wellbore.
 Brine is a common completion fluid. Proper brine fluid must
be selected on the basis of its density for well control, compatibil-
ity with the formation rock matrix and other fluids, and the crys-
tallization temperature for maximal storage and optimal operating
conditions.
 Deepwater environments often present conditions for the for-
mation of gas hydrates. Computer models can be used to evaluate
the hydrate-equilibrium conditions for a variety of completion
brines.
 Surfactants are often added to completion fluids to minimize
potential formation-damage problems associated with water block-
ing, oil-wetting, clay control, fines migration, and emulsions. They
must not be used indiscriminately, however, because they can
cause additional damage as opposed to preventing it.
130
Temperature Log
(b)
 Fluid-loss control is critical to the installation of the tool sys-
tem for frac packing post-perforating. Fluid loss should be mini-
mized but not necessarily stopped. The common methods for
controlling fluid loss include reducing hydrostatic pressure and
spotting viscous polymer gels or acid-soluble graded solids par-
ticles. Some tool systems have mechanical isolation valves to
mechanically control fluid loss.
 Polymer-based fluids (linear gel and crosslinked gel) are of-
ten used for the main frac-packing treatment. Their properties
could significantly affect fluid-loss control, pumping hydraulics,
proppant delivery, frac packing, and formation damage. The
crosslink time and stability time should be derived from the cool-
est calculated work-string temperature. However, the crosslink
break time should be tested at a temperature closer to the bottom-
hole static temperature after pumping has ceased (Malochee and
Comeaux 2003). The proper gel load should be selected on the ba-
sis of the downhole temperature because of the gel degradation at
high temperatures.
 In some deepwater completions, multiple fluids are used, in
which case each fluid should be evaluated individually. The fluid
that is considered fit for purpose should undergo evaluation
(Javora et al. 2006) with the proper laboratory equipment and pro-
cedures for on-site maintenance and handling.
Work String
 The work string is the hardware used to deploy packers and
downhole tools, and it is the conduit to circulate fluids during the
frac-packing process. Similar to drillpipe-design criteria, work-
string design considers torque, drag, pipe stretch or buckling, and
casing wear caused by high metal-to-metal friction.
 Hydraulic analysis (friction and pressure profile along well-
bore) for pumping various fluids throughout all completion proc-
essesincluding cleanout, displacement, perforation, washout
and frac packingshould be conducted for deep wells. This helps
ensure that the maximal pump rate for a specific application can
be delivered without putting any added risk to the integrity of the
work string, surface equipment, and downhole tools.
 In cases when dynamic or transient process conditions (pipe
moving, BHA switching from squeeze/circulation position to the
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
reverse position, and gas kicking) are involved, transient hydrau-
lic analysis should be conducted with a capable software (Banman
et al. 2008).
 An internal abrasion-resistant drillpipe coating maximizes
pump rates while eliminating internal buildup of pipe scale, pipe
failures, and the need for pickling pipe (Pourciau 2007).
Perforating
 There is not enough evidence to indicate that there are differ-
ent effects on the performance of frac-packed completions
between underbalanced and overbalanced conditions in both the
GOM and Campos basin (Neumann et al. 2002; Pourciau et al.
2005). However, in the GOM, the top 10 cased-hole producing
wells were perforated in an underbalanced condition with TCP
guns (Ott and Woods 2003). Overbalanced perforating has
become the standard perforating technique for frac-packing opera-
tions in the Campos basin (Neumann et al. 2002).
 A good rule of thumb is that the screens should cover at least
10 ft above and below the perforated interval, to ensure coverage.
 For a long perforation interval (more than 900 ft), the shrink-
age of the blank pipe resulting from the thermal effect should be
considered, and additional isolation packers should be installed
(Rovina et al. 2000).
Downhole Assembly
 Designing a reliable and robust downhole frac-packing as-
sembly is very important for the whole operation. There are more
challenges for the downhole assembly when the multitreated
interval gets longer and deeper, and the demand for larger vol-
umes of proppant and high pumping rates becomes evident.
 Service-tool movement from squeeze/circulation position to
the reverse position can apply a large drawdown pressure on the
formation. This swabbing effect has serious implications on sand
placement and production from the target zones. The operation
procedures must be carefully planned and modified to eliminate
excessive tool reciprocation and to minimize the instantaneous
swabbing effect. At the same time, keeping the hole in a clean
condition is very important to ensure that the whole operation pro-
gresses smoothly and successfully.
 The annular clearance between the inside diameter and the
section below crossover tool (Fig. 3) down to the screen should be
selected large enough (more than 0.75 to 1 in.) to minimize prop-
pant bridging and to avoid premature sandout (Moreno et al. 2009).
 It is important to maintain a balanced or overbalanced condi-
tion to avoid flowing unconsolidated sands before the placement
of proppant into the perforations.
Proppant and Screen
 Proppants in a frac pack should provide an effective perme-
ability contrast, maintain fracture conductivity without proppant
crushing, control sand influx and fines migration, and minimize
proppant embedment in soft rock formation.
 In general, the proppant used in frac packing is larger than
that used for gravel packing. The proppant size should be selected
with the formation-sand size analysis, and it is usually a multiple
of the d50 formation-sand size (e.g., d50  7 or 8).
 Completions in deeper wells, with high fracture-closure
stresses, must use manufactured ceramic poppants because of
their consistent spherical shape and higher strength. Ceramic
proppants, because of their consistent shape, will provide a better
fracture conductivity.
Wellbore-Debris Cleaning
 With the field operations experiences, the greatest challenge
encountered in frac packing is downhole-debris management.
 Historical data indicate that as much as 30% of NPT during
completions is a result of debris left in the wellbore (Hern 2010).
 There are a few options to manage the risks related to down-
hole debris. Applying high-viscosity gel slugs with high-density
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
completion fluid regularly sweeps the well system. The work
string should be rotated and reciprocated (Pourciau 2007) when
such slugs are circulated, especially for a highly deviated or hori-
zontal well. The debris is usually cleaned out of the well with a
special tool (Hern 2010) (i.e., downhole casing scraper, downhole
debris filter, downhole magnetic tool, or junk basket).
Calibration Tests (Minifrac and SRTs)
 Calibration tests provide fracture extension, closure pres-
sures, and fluid leakoff, which are used to redesign the main frac-
packing treatment to achieve TSO. Modern fracturing engineering
software could help the completion engineer analyze the results of
the calibration tests and determine key parameters.
 True live bottomhole pressure is critical to evaluate the frac-
ture-closure pressure. It is more challenging to interpret minifrac-
test results in soft and high-permeability formations than it is in
low-permeability hard rocks. In general,  the G-function  plot
dBHP
(Smith et al. 2002) or a derivative plot ISIP  t , where
dt
ISIP is the instantaneous shut-in pressure, BHP is the bottomhole
dBHP
pressure, t is the time, is the bottomhole pressure change
dt
rate and * is the multiplication operation in the original content.
(Neumann et al. 2002) gives a good indication of closure point
during a minifrac analysis.
 In the Campos basin, the minifrac test is needed only for the
calibration test (Neumann et al. 2002). However, in the rest of the
world, both minifrac and SRT are needed. The determined exten-
sion pressure and rate from the SRT could help identify the clo-
sure pressure from the minifrac because the fracture-extension
pressure is an upper bound on the fracture-closure pressure.
 Adding pH-control additives into the SRT fluid enhances the
reservoirs ability to return to its preminifrac leakoff condition.
Therefore, it results in a higher success rate for TSO during the
main frac-packing treatment and a higher net-pressure gain for
treatments. Using a pH-control-additive technique could result in
60% higher net-pressure gains than in treatments without a pH-
control additive (Holcomb et al. 2002).
 The injection fluid during minifrac tests could affect the
leakoff characteristics of the main frac-packing treatment (Bruce
and Jacot 2000; Smith et al. 2000; Holcomb et al. 2002). This
effect should be considered for the main-treatment design with
the proper software (Bruce and Jacot 2000). Injecting non-
crosslinked gel with added higher breaker concentrations and
controlling pH in the SRT could recover the reservoir leakoff
characteristics.
Surface Equipment
 There are four basic types of equipment used for the frac-
packing treatmentmixing and blending, pumping, proppant han-
dling, and monitoring/control.
 Skid-mounted equipment has become very popular and
somewhat of an industry standard because it provides higher
deployment versatility. All equipment should be customized to
meet a specific set of design parameters.
 A dedicated, fit-for-purpose stimulation vessel and its crew
members are also critical to the success of the frac-packing opera-
tion. The vessel should have enough space to accommodate frac
equipment, mixing and blending equipment, storage proppant and
liquid equipment, and a pumping and control/monitoring room for
the operation.
Frac-Packing Design and Simulation
 Achieving TSO is the key for successful frac packing in
high-permeability formations. TSO fracturing relies on a carefully
timed TSO to limit fracture growth and to allow for fracture infla-
tion and packing.
 The criteria for TSO in frac-pack design should include
designing to prespecified fracture length (25 to 50 ft) to optimize
near-wellbore conductivity; determining the pumping schedule in
131
terms of rate and proppant concentration; designing to achieve a
minimal concentration per unit area; and maintaining pumping
pressures at less than critical maximal pressures.
 TSO should be designed with modern fracturing software
with the calibration-test results and other rock mechanical proper-
ties. The critical information needed for a frac-packing design
should include casing and work-string size, wellbore deviation,
perforation-interval length, formation permeability, rocks Youngs
modulus, mineralogy, bottomhole pressure and bottomhole tem-
perature, water depth, and proppant size and type (Moreno et al.
2009). With this information, a proper downhole completion-as-
sembly tool (screen, blank pipe, and other components), packers,
perforation system, and completion fluids can be selected.
 A screenout may occur early if fluid leaks off to the forma-
tion faster than predicted. Conversely, a screenout may not occur
during the job if fluid leakoff is much slower than predicted. If a
TSO is not achieved in the moderate- and high-permeability for-
mation, a stimulated completion is not expected.
 Laminated shales, greater than 3 m, are able to constrain
fracture-height growth at common pump rates (Neumann et al.
2002). The laminated formations with multiple lobes and defini-
tive shale breaks also present a challenge to interpolate data and
model the fracture.
 HRWP rather than frac packing should be used as a sand-
control method for thin and high-permeability formations. Cau-
tion should be taken in using frac packs when water or unwanted
fluid is very close to the treated intervals (Neumann et al. 2002).
 Non-Darcy and multiphase effects should be considered in
the frac-pack design and proppant selection when said effects are
significant (Vincent et al. 1999).
Post-Frac-Packing Evaluation
 After a frac pack is in place, it is important to evaluate the
effectiveness of the treatment. There are a few logging methods
that include density log, dual-detector neutron log, and spectra
gamma ray or tracer logs.
 The tracer log is the most common log method. Fracture
fluid and proppant could be tagged with different radioactive trac-
ers. Tracer logs record spectral gamma ray data as a function of
depth, and therefore, they can evaluate the distribution of the
tagged materials along the wellbore. This allows not only the esti-
mation of the total and individual packed-fracture heights across
the multizones but also the detection of the voids in the packs if
they are present.
 With the logging feedback, a decision could be made imme-
diately after the completion. When voids or plugged packs are
detected, remedial action can be taken to help optimize produc-
tion and to prolong the life of the well.
 Combining tracer logs with downhole pressure- and temper-
ature-gauge data allows one to quantify the fracture model in
terms of the exact screenout prediction, dynamic fluid-flow analy-
sis, and annular-pack sand percentage; it is also possible to iden-
tify all the major events taking place at downhole conditions,
identify the time of their occurrence, and obtain explanations of
some unexpected events (Sanford et al. 2010).
Conclusion
The well information and the key frac-packing parameters for
more than 600 frac-packing jobs were reviewed. The historical
review shows that the frac-packing methodology has been
improved to pack the hole more efficiently and safely. The sum-
mary of best practices and lessons learned and the engineering
challenges and implementations of frac packing provide a good
guideline for future practice. In summary,
Frac packing can be successfully executed with reliable tools,
well-prepared plans and operation procedures, and dedicated
teamwork.
Single-trip, multizone systems have been developed and are
field-proven. With the validation of these systems, it is possible
to perform frac-packing operations with less rig time and high
reliability.
132
The TSO is the key for a successful frac pack in high-perme-
ability formations.
Using a frac-packing simulator, updated with real-time data,
and taking into account the parameters estimated from the cali-
bration tests will help field engineers design, optimize, and exe-
cute the frac-packing process.
The minifrac test and SRT are essential applications, before
designing the main fracture treatment, because they assist in
estimating important parameters such as fracture-closure pres-
sure and time, fracture leakoff, and fluid efficiency.
Real-time monitoring of the surface live annulus pressure,
pump rate, bottomhole pressure, and sand-injection concentra-
tion is crucial to understand the overall frac-packing process.
Real-time monitoring of bottomhole temperature could help
design fluid breakers more efficiently.
Cleaning the wellbore before frac packing and pumping high-
quality fluids are important to ensure completion success.
Models that analyze work-string torque and drag, frac packing,
perforation, proppant/screen and fluids selections, wireline
operations, fluid hydraulics, and debris cleanout are essential
for the whole process.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their appreciation to Baker
Hughes and Petrobras for the opportunity to present this paper.
We also wish to thank Baker Hughes field-operation crews for the
execution of these treatments. We also wish to thank colleagues
Nicholas Clem and Luly Stephens for their valuable input and the
time spent to edit the manuscript.
References
Banman, M., Delattre, E., Sofyan, M. et al. 2008. Single-Trip Multi- Zone
Gravel PackingField Case Study Within Total E&P Indonesie on
Handil, Bekapai, and Sisi Nubi Fields. Paper IPTC 12388 presented at
the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 35 December. http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/12388-MS.
Bruce, R. and Jacot, R. 2000. The Effect of Fluid Loss During Fracture
Calibration Tests on the Main Treatment. Paper SPE 65624 presented
at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, West Virginia,
1719 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/65624-MS.
Cipolla, C.L., Shucart, J.K., and Lafitte, J.R. 2005. Evolution of Frac-pack
Design, Modeling, and Execution in the Ceiba Field, Equatorial
Guinea. Paper SPE 95514 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 912 October. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/95514-MS.
Farias, R., Li, J., Vilela, A. et al. 2007. Openhole Horizontal Gravel Pack-
ing Offshore Brazil: Best Practices and Lessons Learned From 72
Operations. Paper SPE 107190 presented at the SPE Latin American
and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Ar-
gentina, 1518 April. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/107190-MS.
Gillespie, G., Angel, K., Cameron, J. et al. 2005. Troika Field: A Well
Failure, and Then a Successful Workover. Paper SPE 97291 presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, 912 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97291-MS.
Hale, C., Conrad, M., Bose, M. et al. 2004. Is Live Annulus Data Interpre-
tation During Frac-Pack Operations Viable Information? Paper SPE
86461 presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1820 February.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/86461-MS.
Hannah, R.R., Park, E.I., Porter, D.A. et al. 1994. Combination Fractur-
ing/Gravel-Packing Completion Technique on the Amberjack, Missis-
sippi Canyon 109 Field. SPE Prod & Fac 9 (4): 262266. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/26562-PA.
Hern, G. 2010. Deepwater Wellbore Cleanup System. Paper SPE 137090
presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference,
Galveston, Texas, 56 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/137090-MS.
Holcomb, W.D., Landry, T.J., Comeaux, B.A. et al. 2002. New Technique
Restores Initial Fluid Efficiency Observed in Mini-Frac and Results in
Increased TSO Frac-Pack Success. Paper SPE 77775 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, 29 September2 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/77775-MS.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
Javora, P.H., Stevens, R., Devine, C. et al. 2006. Deepwater Completion
Challenges Re-Define Best Practices for Completion and Packer Fluid
Selection. Paper SPE 103209 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 2427 September.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/103209-MS.
Joseph, K.P. 2010. Case History: First of Its Kind: Installation of the Mul-
tizone Single-Trip (MST) Technology in Deep Water, India. Paper
SPE 134084 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 1922 September. http://dx.doi,org/10.2118/
134084-MS.
Liu, L., Deng, J., Ma, Y. et al. 2006. Single-Trip, Multiple-Zone Frac
Packing Offshore Sand Control: Overview of 58 Case Histories. Paper
SPE 103779 presented at the International Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, 57 December. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/103779-MS.
Malochee, S. and Comeaux, B. 2003. Case Study: Analyzing Bottomhole
Temperature Gauge Data in Gulf of Mexico Frac Packs to Optimize
Fracture Fluid Crosslink, Stability, and Break Times. Paper SPE 84215
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, 58 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84215-MS.
McLarty, J.M. and DeBonis, V. 1995. Gulf Coast Section SPE Production
Operations Study GroupTechnical Highlights from a Series of Frac-
Pack Treatment Symposiums. Paper SPE 30471 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 2225
October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30471-MS.
Moreno, B., Haydell, G., and Landry, L. 2009. Critical Data Needs for
Design of Frac-Pack Completions in Todays Oilfield Environment.
Paper SPE 124389 presented at the Offshore Europe Meeting, Aber-
deen, UK, 811 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/124389-MS.
Neumann, L.F., Pedroso, C.A., Moreira, L. et al. 2002. Lessons Learned
from a Hundred Frac Packs in the Campos Basin. Paper SPE 73722
presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on For-
mation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2021 February. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/73722-MS.
Norman, D. 2004. Frac-Pack Completion: Why Has It Become the Stand-
ard Strategy for Sand Control?. Paper SPE 101511-DL presented at
the SPE Distinguished Lecture 20032004.
Ogier, K.S., Haddad, Z., Moreira, O. et al. 2011. The Worlds Deepest
Frac-Pack Completions Utilizing a Single-Trip, Multi-Zone System: A
Gulf of Mexico Case Study in the Lower Tertiary Formation. Paper
SPE 147313 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 30 October2 November. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/147313-MS.
Ott, W. and Woods, J. 2003. Modern Sandface Completion Practices
Handbook. World Oil Magazine. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing
Company.
Petit, G., Leschi, P., and Dusterhoft, R. 1995. Frac and Pack Stimulation:
Application and Field Experience From Hylia Gabon, West Africa. Pa-
per SPE 30115 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1516 May. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/30115-MS.
Pourciau, R.D. 2007. Deepwater Extended-Reach Sand-Control Comple-
tions and Interventions. SPE Drill & Compl 22 (2): 157164. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/98563-PA.
Pourciau, R.D., Fisk, J.H., Descant, F.J. et al. 2005. Completion and Well-
Performance Results, Genesis Field, Deepwater Gulf of Mexico. SPE
Drill & Compl 20 (2): 147156. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84415-PA.
Rovina, P.S., Pedroso, C.E., Coutinho, A.B. et al. 2000. Triple Frac-Pack-
ing in an Ultra-deepwater Subsea Well in Roncador Field, Campos Ba-
sinMaximizing the Production Rate. Paper SPE 63110 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
14 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/63110-MS.
Sanford, J., Bruton, J., Woomer, J. et al. 2010. Quantitative Frac-Pack
Analysis Using Dual Tracer Logs and Downhole Gauges. Paper SPE
137757 presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions
Conference, Galveston, Texas, 56 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
137757-MS.
Smith, J., Vitthal, S., McGowen, J.M. et al. 2000. How Minifracs Alter
Leakoff and Ways to Counteract It. Paper SPE 58767 presented at the
SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafay-
ette, Louisiana, 2324 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/58767-MS.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
Smith, J.E., Meyer, B.R., and Jacot, R.H. 2002. Fracture Pressure-Slope
Analysis for TSOs in High-Permeability Formations. SPE Prod & Fac
17 (2): 110121. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/78149-PA.
Stewart, B.R., Mullen, M.E., Ellis, R.C. et al. 1995. Economic Justification
for Fracturing Moderate to High-Permeability Formations in Sand
Control Environments. Paper SPE 30470 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 2225 October.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30470-MS.
Suryanada, S., Wahyudhi, F., Garcia, E. et al. 2010. Saving 70% Rig Com-
pletion Time on 13 Multizone Wells With Single-Trip Multizone
Completion System in Mahakam Delta Offshore Indonesia. Paper SPE
133409 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, Florence, Italy, 1922 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
133409-MS.
Tiner, R.L., Ely, J.W., and Schraufnagel, R. 1996. Frac PacksState of
the Art. Paper SPE 36456 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 69 October. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/36456-MS.
Van Sickle, E., Womble, A., and McKown, M. 2006. Achieving Savings
in Time-Sensitive Completion Costs: Results from Single-Trip Multi-
zone Frac-Packing Case Histories. Paper SPE 103184 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, 2427 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/103184-MS.
Vincent, M.C., Pearson, C.M., and Kullman, J. 1999. Non-Darcy and Mul-
tiphase Flow in Propped Fractures: Case Studies Illustrate the Dra-
matic Effect on Well Productivity. Paper SPE 54630 presented at the
SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 2627 May.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/54630-MS.
Vitthal, S. 2003. A Review of Deepwater CompletionsCase Histories
Selection and Emerging Technologies. Paper presented at the Deep-
water Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1417 July.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl  159 E00 L
ft  0.3048* E00 m
in.  25.4* E03 m
psi  6.895 E03 Pa
*Conversion factor is exact.
Jeff Li has worked in the coiled-tubing (CT) service industry
since 1996. He has been directly involved in the research and
development of several CT technologies, ranging from CT dril-
ling, milling, fracturing, and sand cleanout. Currently, Li is the
principal investigator for the project of the mud displacement
in the primary cement and the cement-sheath failure evalua-
tion. His particular expertise is with multiphase-fluid flow and
solids-transport studies in sand cleaning, gravel packing, dril-
ling, and cementing process. Li holds BSc and MSc degrees
from Xian Jiaotong University, China. He also holds MSc and
PhD degrees in mechanical engineering from the University of
Saskatchewan, Canada. Li has published more than 30 tech-
nical papers, has held several patents, and is a technical
reviewer for SPE Drilling and Completion. He is a member of
SPE and ICoTA.
John Weirich is current Senior Manager of the Lower Comple-
tions and Reservoir Applications Engineering Group for Baker
Hughes in Houston, Texas. He has more than 30 years of world-
wide operational, marketing, and technical experience in
sand control and lower completions.
Tarik Abdelfattah has been working with Baker Hughes for
approximately 4 years, focusing mainly on lower completions
and applications related to production optimization. Within
the Lower Completions and Reservoir Applications Team, he is
responsible for providing technical assistance and recommen-
dations on sand-control methods and inflow-control comple-
tions. Abdelfattahs primary focus is simulating added benefits
resulting from running such completions with petroleum engi-
neering fundamentals and integrated modeling. He earned a
BS degree in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M
133
University, and during his tenure with Baker Hughes, he has
published two SPE papers pertaining to the work he has been
involved with in the group.
Carlos Alberto Pedroso became a chemical engineer in 1986
and a petroleum engineer in 1987, when he joined Petrobras.
He worked in Reconcavo basin (onshore northeastern Brazil)
until 1995, when he started a masters degree in petroleum en-
gineering at Campinas University for hydraulic fracturing. In
1997, Pedroso joined the Campos Basin Stimulation Team, and
since then has focused his efforts to develop sand-control and
stimulation (SC&S) solutions for deepwater environments. In
134
2003, he became a technique adviser for SC&S. In 2006,
Pedroso was an SPE Distinguished Lecturer, discussing frac
packs in ultradeep water. In 2009, he was recognized with the
national prize, the 2009 Petroleum and Gas Brazilian National
Industry Personality: Technique Excellence. In 2010, Pedroso
was recognized with the 2010 SPE South American and Carib-
bean Production and Operations Award. Currently, he is the
Manager for SC&S for all offshore Brazil operations. Pedroso is
the Chairperson of the SPE Macae Section. Author of more
than 20 SPE papers (and 43 Petrobras papers), he has made a
substantial contribution to SC&S development, introducing or
creating new technologies.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion