Certification

This is to certify that Multi-stage hydraulic fracturing completion design, is a study for thesis
(Professional Master’s Degree (Specialty: Petroleum Engineering)) carried out and written by
BELLA AMBATINDA Cédric under my supervision.

Name of Supervisor:………………..……………………………………………………………..
Qualification:………………………………………………………………………………………..
Signature:…………………………...……………………………………………………………….
Date: ………………………………………………………………………………………………...

i
 Dedication

To my parents

ii
 Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank Mr. Brice ASOPJIO for giving me the opportunity to do my internship
in MA-ES. He was more than just a boss. His door was always open whenever I ran into a trouble
spot or had a question about my research. He consistently allowed this paper to be my own work
but steered me in the right direction whenever he thought I needed it.

I take this opportunity to express gratitude to all the staff of MA-ES. They were kind and
supportive.

I would like to thank Prof. François MVONDO OWONO for being my academic supervisor.
He made sure that this work had been done in conformity with the university’s rules.

I wish to express my sincere thanks to Mr. Gabriel KUIATSE, the promoter of ISA-EMT. He
founded this university and transmitted his passion for petroleum engineering.

I would also like to thank all the staff of ISA-EMT, especially Mr. Stéphane KOUM, for all the
efforts to ensure that we are receiving the best training.

I give special thanks to these families: BELLA, HYONG, MAMA, NAVARRO and KOHLRUS
for their love and support.

I am grateful to my classmates, especially Cynthia FOTSO and Franck MENDO. We learned

great subjects together, and when times were hard, I always knew I could count on them.

Finally, I must express my profound gratitude to my family and my friends for providing me with
unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study and through the
process of researching and writing this thesis. This accomplishment would not have been possible
without them. Thank you.

iii
 Table of contents

Certification.......................................................................................................................................i

Dedication........................................................................................................................................ii

Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................................iii

Table of contents.............................................................................................................................iv

List of tables....................................................................................................................................vi

List of figures.................................................................................................................................vii

Abbreviations and glossary...........................................................................................................viii

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................ix

Résumé.............................................................................................................................................x

Introduction......................................................................................................................................1

Chapter 1: Generalities.................................................................................................................3

1.1. Presentation of MA-ES..........................................................................................................3

1.1.1. Activities of MA-ES...................................................................................................3

1.1.2. Structure of MA-ES....................................................................................................3

1.2. Literature review...................................................................................................................4

1.2.1. Definition of well completion....................................................................................4

1.2.2. Purpose of hydraulic fracturing................................................................................11

1.2.3. Research on completion design for multi-stage hydraulic fracturing.......................13

Chapter 2: Methodology, tools, and data...................................................................................17

2.1. Methodology........................................................................................................................17

2.1.1. Data gathering..........................................................................................................17

2.1.2. Material selection.....................................................................................................18

2.1.3. Equipment selection.................................................................................................20

2.1.4. Well completion schematic......................................................................................21

iv
 Table of contents
2.1.5. Completion procedures.............................................................................................21

2.2. Tools....................................................................................................................................21

2.3. Data......................................................................................................................................22

Chapter 3: Results and discussion..............................................................................................25

3.1. Material selection................................................................................................................25

3.1.1. Metallurgy................................................................................................................25

3.1.2. Seals..........................................................................................................................26

3.2. Completion method.............................................................................................................27

3.3. Well schematic....................................................................................................................31

3.3.1. Isolation packer........................................................................................................32

3.3.2. Ball-activated fracking sleeve..................................................................................32

3.3.3. Non-prep toe valve...................................................................................................32

3.3.4. Isolation valve..........................................................................................................33

3.3.5. Bullnose....................................................................................................................33

3.4. Running procedure..............................................................................................................34

3.5. Benefits and limitations.......................................................................................................37

3.6. Recommendations...............................................................................................................37

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................38

References......................................................................................................................................39

v
 List of tables

Table 1-1: Benefits and limitations of plug-and-perf.....................................................................14

Table 1-2: Benefits and limitations of ball-and-sleeve completion................................................16
Table 2-1: Minimum required data.................................................................................................18
Table 2-2: Common elastomers and their applications..................................................................20
Table 2-3: Data for well completion design...................................................................................23
Table 3-1: Equipment cost for the “ball-and-sleeve” method........................................................27
Table 3-2: Equipment cost for “plug-and-perf”method.................................................................27
Table 3-3: Operation cost for “ball-and-sleeve” method...............................................................28
Table 3-4: Operation cost for "plug-and-perf" method..................................................................28

vi
 List of figures
Figure 1-1: Structure of MA-ES.......................................................................................................4
Figure 1-2: Typical casing and liner clean-out string.......................................................................5
Figure 1-3: Running gun string and perforating...............................................................................6
Figure 1-4: Gravel pack principle.....................................................................................................7
Figure 1-5: Multi-zone completion..................................................................................................8
Figure 1-6: Basic completion design................................................................................................9
Figure 1-7: Conventional Christmas tree.......................................................................................10
Figure 1-8: Schematic of the hydraulic fracturing procedure).......................................................11
Figure 1-9: Production and reserves enhancement from hydraulic fracturing in low permeability
reservoirs.........................................................................................................................................13
Figure 1-10: Schematic of the plug-and-perf method....................................................................14
Figure 1-11: Schematic of a ball activated fracking sleeve technique in a horizontal well...........15
Figure 2-1: First-pass material selection........................................................................................19
Figure 2-2: PowerDraw interface...................................................................................................22
Figure 2-3: Initial well schematic...................................................................................................24
Figure 3-1: Corrosion rates as a function of chromium content.....................................................25
Figure 3-2: A selection guide for the completion method in MSHF..............................................30
Figure 3-3: Proposed completion design........................................................................................31
Figure 3-4: Activation process of a ball-activated fracking sleeve................................................32
Figure 3-5: Non-prep toe valve......................................................................................................33
Figure 3-6: Isolation valve..............................................................................................................33
Figure 3-7: Bullnose.......................................................................................................................34
Figure 3-8: 4-1/2" liner initially.....................................................................................................34
Figure 3-9: Lower completion RIH................................................................................................34
Figure 3-10: Packers are set, and the first stage is ready to be pumped.........................................35
Figure 3-11: Fluid flow when treating zone 1................................................................................35
Figure 3-12: First ball is dropped in the well and guided...............................................................35
Figure 3-13: The first ball fracking sleeve is opened, and zone 2 is ready for treatment..............36
Figure 3-14: Treatment of zone 3...................................................................................................36
Figure 3-15: Treatment of zone 4...................................................................................................37

vii
 Abbreviations and glossary

BOP = Blowout preventer

BSW = Bottom sediments and water

CRA = corrosion-resistant alloy

CT = Coiled tubing

FOI = Fold of increase

MA-ES = MALEGA Energy Service

MD = Measured depth

MSHF = Multi-stage hydraulic fracturing

NPV = Net present value

NTU = Nephelometric turbidity unit

PBR = polished bore receptacle

PNP = Plug-and-perf

RU = Rig up

RIH = Run in hole

RD = Rig down

TCP = Tubing conveyed perforating

TD = Total depth

XMT = Christmas tree

vii
 Abstract

Hydraulic fracturing is a reservoir stimulation technique that increases productivity and oil and
gas reserves in low permeability reservoirs. One of the main challenges facing the fracking
industry is fracturing multiple targets along a single wellbore. Because one zone has to be
isolated while treating another one, this is a delicate operation with huge costs. To lower the
completion cost, the simple idea is to perform the job in a single trip.

This research proposes a completion that can allow fracturing four zones in a single trip in the
field “X.” The steps to design a well completion for multiple fracturing are first to select the best
completion method then the required equipment and the materials that it is made of. After that,
the completion schematic must be drawn using PowerDraw 2019 in this case, and the summary
installation procedures explained. The data used to design the completion are the well trajectory,
the reservoir data including temperature, pressure and fluid properties, and the production and
injection strategy.

The results suggest that multi-stage hydraulic fracturing can be done in a single trip using the
ball- and-sleeve method. The most appropriate materials were found to be an alloy with 13% of
chromium as metallurgy and Hydrogenated nitrile for sealing elements.

Keywords: Hydraulic fracturing, well completion, Multi-stage fracturing, Ball-and-sleeve,

PowerDraw

ix
 Résumé

La fracturation hydraulique est une technique de stimulation qui permet d’augmenter la

productivité des réservoirs de faible perméabilité et leurs réserves de pétrole et de gaz. L’un des
plus grands défis de la fracturation hydraulique est la fracturation de plusieurs zones traversées
par un seul puits. En effet, une zone doit être isolée pendant qu’une autre est en train d’être
traitée. Cette opération est extrêmement coûteuse. Cependant, les coûts pourraient être réduits si
on l’exécute en une seule descente dans le puits.

Cette étude porte sur une proposition de complétion de puits capable de fracturer 4 zones en une
seule descente dans le champ « X ». Pour proposer la complétion du puits, il faut d’abord choisir
la méthode de complétion la plus adaptée, puis sélectionner les équipements et les matériaux
appropriés, capables de tenir sur la durée de vie du puits. Il faut enfin dessiner le schéma de
complétion et écrire la procédure de son installation. Les données utilisées pour le
dimensionnement des équipements sont la trajectoire du puits, les propriétés du réservoir et des
fluides produits et injectés et enfin la stratégie de production. Les schémas de complétion ont été
réalisés avec PowerDraw 2019.

Les résultats montrent que la méthode « ball-and-sleeve » permet de fracturer 4 zones en une
seule descente. Dans ce cas précis, la métallurgie recommandée est un acier contenant 13% de
chrome et les éléments d’étanchéité seront en nitrile hydrogéné.

Mots-clés : fracturation hydraulique, complétion de puits, fracturation multiple, méthode « ball-

and-sleeve », PowerDraw.

x
 Introduction

In the beginning, the purpose of drilling a well is to confirm the presence of hydrocarbons. It is
well known that at this stage, 7 wells out of 10 are dry. So there is no need to spend much money
on them. For the other wells, further research is conducted, and if the hydrocarbons reserve is
found to be commercially viable, then some special equipment must be installed in the well to
start production. This is known as completing the well. Completion is the interface between the
reservoir and the surface facilities (Bellarby, 2009). Without it, it is impossible to produce a well
safely and efficiently. The completion string must be designed to reach the production objectives.
In some cases, permeability is low, leading to low production rates. This requires hydraulic
fracturing to create a conductive path for the fluid from the reservoir to the well. This process can
significantly increase well productivity and oil and gas reserves. This topic is well addressed in
the literature (Bellarby, 2009; Economides et al., 2013). However, it deals with only one
reservoir. Sometimes several reservoir zones are to be produced with a single well as it is more
economical. Fracturing multiple zones is challenging because one zone has to be isolated while
treating another zone.

Hydraulic fracturing is a costly operation. In fact, an oil price of 50$ (fifty Dollars) per barrel is
needed to break even this type of projects (Kleinberg, et al., 2018). These costs include
completion costs, fluid and proppants costs, and pumping charges (Jabbari & Benson, 2013).
Multi-stage hydraulic fracturing (MSHF) costs are even higher due to longer operation times. In
recent years, there have been several studies to determine which completion method is the most
economical (Mathur & Kumar, 2016). Actually, the best completion method doesn’t exist. It all
depends on the application. But to reduce the overall cost of MSHF, the simple idea is to conduct
the operation in a single trip. The aim of this work is, therefore, to design a completion that can
perform hydraulic fracturing of multiple zones in a single trip. Is it technically feasible?

This research was conducted while doing our internship at MA-ES from 30 th September to 30th
November 2019. To design effective completion, we need to perform the following tasks:

- Select the most suitable completion method and corresponding equipment

- Choose the appropriate materials so that the equipment can be used during the entire life
of the well

1
 - Draw the completion schematic and write installation procedures

This work is structured in three chapters. In chapter one, the fundamentals of well completion are
explained, equipment used in typical well completion and its role is presented. This is followed
by the principle of hydraulic fracturing and the demonstration that hydraulic fracturing can
improve well productivity and increase hydrocarbons reserve. At the end of this chapter, an
overview of the research on MSHF completions is presented. In chapter two, the steps needed to
design a well completion are explained, followed by the tools and data used in this work. In
chapter three, the proposed well completion is discussed, covering the completion method that
will be used, the selected materials, the drawing of the completion and the running procedures.

2
 Generalities

Chapter 1: Generalities
This chapter begins with the presentation of MA-ES, the company where this research was
conducted, followed by a literature review on the topic of multi-stage hydraulic fracturing
completion design. This will introduce key concepts such as the definition of well completion, the
purpose of a hydraulic fracturing stimulation, and an overview of research in completion designs
for hydraulic fracturing.

1.1. Presentation of MA-ES

MALEGA Energy Service (MA-ES) was created on the 12 th of September 2017. It is an oilfield
services company. Its headquarters are located on 823 Rue FRANQUEVILLE in Douala.

1.1.1. Activities of MA-ES

MA-ES offers a complete production service by providing the equipment and personnel needed
during completion design, field development production and abandonment. The company’s goal
is to optimize the production of oil and gas fields. To achieve that, the company currently offers
the following product lines:

 Completion Service: MA-ES completion service provides completion accessories and

equipment (crossovers, nipples, pup joints…) and assists the client from the workshop
equipment preparation (QA/QC, assembly make up, and pressure test) under the API
standards and safety up to the onsite installation and supervision
 Workover Service: MA-ES work over service includes well servicing rigs used to
provide a variety of well completion, workover and intervention services, including
completions installations, sidetracking of wells and support for perforating operations.
Rigless service provides intervention in land application.

1.1.2. Structure of MA-ES

The structure of MA-ES is illustrated in figure 1.1. The managing director is responsible for
defining the company’s strategic vision, ensures company policies and legal guidelines are
clearly communicated, oversees the company’s business operations, financial performance,
investments and ventures, supervises executives in their duties, and maintains positive relations
with the business partners. He works directly with the human resources and legal
administrator, the finance manager, the administrative assistant and the country
operations coordinator. The
3
country operations coordinator is really a pillar of the organization. He has to make sure every
operation is successful. He works closely with the HSE coordinator, the logistics and transit
coordinator, the IT team and the completion engineers’ team.

Managing Director

HR & Legal admin Finance manager

Accountant

Administrative
assistant

Country operations cordinator

IT lead/ HSE lead

Logistics and transit cordinator
Completion engineer
HSE cordinator

IT Specialist

Figure 1-1: Structure of MA-ES

1.2. Literature review

1.2.1. Definition of well completion
Well completion refers to all operations done after the end of drilling to convert a drilled well
into a producing well or an injection well. These operations are wellbore cleanout or casing
cleaning, casing perforations, running lower completion, running upper completion, installing a
Christmas tree and well clean up.

a. Wellbore cleanout
Well completion starts as soon as the production casing is landed and cemented in place for a
cased well and when the last section has been drilled for an open hole. In a cased well, the
very first
operation is to clean the casing. Drillers used a special fluid, referred to as “drilling mud” to
conduct their operations. This fluid must be replaced with a completion fluid that is best suited
for completion operations. Also, the casing itself must be cleaned to remove the remaining debris
in the well. This is critical where the casing will be perforated and where some special
equipment, such as packers, will be set. The process of casing cleaning involves the use of
mechanical scrapers and the circulation of drilling mud (figure 1.2). After removing debris, the
mud must be displaced by completion fluid until the fluid is clean: the Nephelometric Turbidity
Unit or NTU must be lower than 20 (Bellarby, 2009).

Figure 1-2: Typical casing and liner clean-out string (Bellarby, 2009)

b. Casing perforations
In a cased hole completion, a casing is set below the producing zone. Therefore, the casing must
be perforated to establish a connection between the reservoir and the well. To establish a path
with the hydrocarbons stored in the pay zone, a perforating gun is lowered to the target depth.
Wireline
is the preferred conveyance method for short and light gun strings. To deploy long and heavy
gun strings, a technique referred to as tubing conveyed perforating or TCP is required (ENI,
1999). Using sensors in part of the gun string, the gun can be accurately positioned in front of the
targeted reservoir. The charges in the gun are now ready to be ignited using the surface
perforating control equipment. Once the correct depth has been confirmed, the gun is fired. The
charges in the gun explode, providing a path through the formation, the cement and the casing to
the production tubing. This is illustrated in figure 1.3.

Figure 1-3: Running gun string and perforating (Renpu, 2011)

c. Running lower completion

The lower completion generally comprises sand control and selectivity equipment. The most used
sand control technique is a gravel pack. In this method, gravel is pumped in the annulus between
screens and casing (figure 1.4).
 Figure 1-4: Gravel pack principle (Economides, et al., 2013)

This gravel filters the produced sand particles and the screens keep the gravel in place. Screens
are made of perforated pipes covered with wires. The holes of these screens are large enough to
let the fluid flow through it, yet small enough to stop the gravel. The first equipment to be landed
in a gravel pack completion is its base. This can be a sump packer or a bridge plug. The role of
a sump packer or a bridge plug is to isolate the bottom of the well so that an unwanted fluid
cannot flow from below it upward. Above the sump packer or the bridge plug, there is generally a
bull plug to tag on it. On top of it, comes the screen assembly, which is comprised of screens
joints screwed together until the perforated zone is all covered. Then there is a need to add some
blank pipes to constitute a gravel reserve. Above that, the gravel pack extension allows the
gravel pack fluid circulation. This type of lower completion ends with a gravel pack packer. To
select the zones that are produced or injected, it is most frequent to use a sliding sleeve, a
landing nipple and at least two packers in a single string completion. Here, the packers isolate
the annulus and guide the produced fluids towards the tubing. The sliding sleeve will allow a
selective or commingled production. To produce the lower reservoir, the sliding sleeve must be
closed and to
produce the upper reservoir, a plug must be installed in the landing nipple, and then the sliding
sleeve must be opened with wireline or slick line (figure 1.5).

Figure 1-5: Multi-zone completion (SCHLUMBERGER, 2019)

d. Running upper completion

The upper completion comprises all the tools between the production packer and the tubing
hanger. The basic tools in an upper completion are a production packer, a locator seal
assembly, a landing nipple, a sliding sleeve, a subsurface safety valve and a tubing hanger. A
packer provides a structural purpose (anchors the tubing to the casing) and a sealing purpose. It
is used to isolate annulus to provide a sufficient barrier or to isolate different production zones for
zonal isolation. A locator seal assembly consists of a mule shoe and a locator or snap latch
connector. A mule shoe guides the upper completion while running in the well and is also used
for wireline operations. The locator establishes the tubing/packer connection and seals the upper
completion inside the packer. A landing nipple is a short tubular device with an internally
machined profile that can accommodate and secure a locking device. It can be used to set a plug
to test the production string or to remove the Christmas tree. A sliding sleeve consists of two
concentric sleeves, each with slots or holes. The inner sleeve can be moved with well intervention
tools to align the openings
to provide a communication path for the circulation of the fluids. A sliding sleeve can be used to
fill the annulus between the casing and the tubing with lighter fluid or to pump a well killing fluid
in the annulus. A subsurface safety valve is a fail-safe valve that is designed to prevent an
uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons from the well if something catastrophic occurs at the
surface. A tubing hanger is a completion component that sits inside the tubing head spool. It is
used to suspend the tubing on top, and to provide a seal between the tubing and the tubing spool.
Sometimes there is a need to include a side pocket gas lift mandrel, a chemical injection
mandrel and a flow coupling in the production string. The gas lift mandrel allows the gas lift
activation, the chemical injection mandrel allows injecting chemicals to get rid of mineral
scales in the production string and the flow coupling is a thick-walled tubular that is used to
protect the tubing string from erosion. A basic completion design comprising all the equipment
listed above is illustrated in figure 1.6.

Figure 1-6: Basic completion design (RGIT MONTROSE, 2009)

 e. Installing Christmas tree
A Christmas tree or XMT is an assembly of valves, all with specific functions, used to control
flow from the well and to provide well intervention access for well maintenance or reservoir
monitoring. Typically, a Christmas tree contains the following valves: a master valve, a kill
wing valve, a flow wing valve and a swab valve (figure 1.7). The master valve is used to shut in
the well. The kill wing valve permits to pump down a kill fluid into the tubing. The flow wing
valve is used to produce hydrocarbons, and the swab valve allows vertical access for well
intervention. To install the Christmas tree, the blowout preventer or BOP is to be removed after
there are at least two barriers in the well (Crumpton, 2018), which can be the completion fluid, a
plug set on the landing nipple, a backpressure valve on the tubing hanger and an isolation valve
deeper set. After BOP is removed, the Christmas tree will be installed and tested. Finally, the
barriers can be removed, and the well is ready for the cleanup.

Top connector

Swab valve
Flow fitting

Flow wing valve

Choke
Choke Kill wing valve
Master valve

Tubing head adapter

Figure 1-7: Conventional Christmas tree (King, 1998)

 f. Well clean up
This is the last operation before starting production. Its purpose is to ensure that the well can flow
and collect data. The procedure is to let the well produce at a low rate until its parameters are
stable (flow rate, pressure, BSW…).

1.2.2. Purpose of hydraulic fracturing

Hydraulic Fracturing is an oil and gas operation used to recover hydrocarbons resources from low
permeability formations. This process involves injecting large volumes of water and additives at a
pressure high enough to initiate a crack in the rock. Continued pumping at this pressure will
propagate the crack in the reservoir. This first step is called the pad stage. After that, a propping
agent added to the fracturing fluid remains in the fracture to keep it open (Figure 1.8).

Figure 1-8: Schematic of the hydraulic fracturing procedure (Guo, et al., 2007)

Hydraulic fracturing is not a new technology. It was first successfully used in the late 1940s
(Speight, 2016). With the advances in drilling technology, hydraulic fracturing can be used in
conjunction with horizontal wells, and this made possible production of unconventional
reservoirs.
It was recorded that 95% of newly drilled wells in the US were hydraulically fractured
(Aminzadeh, 2019). If hydraulic fracturing has some much success in spite of its downsides
(environmentalists argue that hydraulic fracturing pollutes the groundwater and induce
earthquakes), it is because it can significantly increase the productivity of a well (Economides &
Nolte, 2000). For example, let’s assume a fractured well that has kfw = 2000 mD-ft, k = 1 mD, xf
= 1000 ft, rw = 0.328 ft and re = 1490 ft, where kf is the permeability along the fracture, k is the
reservoir permeability, w is the width of the fracture, xf is the fracture half-length, rw is the
wellbore radius and re is the drainage
𝑓
radius. The dimensionless fracture conductivity is 𝐶𝑓𝐷 = 𝐾 𝑤 (equation 1.1). In this case, CfD = 2.
𝑘𝑥𝑓

The effective wellbore radius is 𝑟′ 𝑓

= 𝑥 𝜋(equation 1.2). Here r’w = 280 ft. The skin factor is
𝑤
+2
𝐶𝑓𝐷

𝑟 ′𝑤
𝑠
( = −𝑙𝑛 𝑟
)increase
(equation 1.3). In this case, the skin factor is s = -6.75. Finally, the fold of
𝑤

(FOI) under steady-state radial flow, denoted as J/J0, where J and J0 are the productivity indexes
𝑟
𝑙𝑛( 𝑒 )
before and after fracturing, is 𝐽 = 𝑟
𝑟𝑤
(equation 1.4). In this case, J/J0 = 5.0. That means
𝐽0 𝑙𝑛( 𝑒 )+𝑠
𝑟𝑤

that the production rate will be five times bigger with the same pressure drawdown applied on the
well.

The equations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 suggest that hydraulic fracturing will exhibit better results for
low permeability reservoirs. In fact, equation 1.1 shows that if reservoir permeability k is big
with all other parameters constant, then the fracture conductivity CfD will be small. Then using
equation 1.2, the effective wellbore radius r’w will be small. Equation 1.3 shows the absolute
value of skin factor |s| will be small. And finally, equation 1.4 shows that the fold of increase J/J0
will be small. The benefits of hydraulic are better illustrated in figure 1.8. It is shown that the
flow rate is increased after fracturing and also that the reservoir is produced longer, meaning
hydraulic fracturing permitted to tap into some additional reserves.
Figure 1-9: Production and reserves enhancement from hydraulic fracturing in low
permeability reservoirs (Economides, et al., 2013)

1.2.3. Research on completion design for multi-stage hydraulic

fracturing The two most common methods of multi-stage hydraulic fracturing are the widely
used plug-and- perf method and the relatively new ball-and-sleeve method (Mathur & Kumar,
2016).

a. Plug-and-perf method (PNP)

In this fracture placement method, the production casing is cemented, and the perforating guns
are lowered in the well using wireline or coiled tubing (CT), depending on the well inclination. In
horizontal wells, coiled tubing is used to perforate the casing. Once the guns are fired and pulled
out of the hole, the fluid is pumped at a high pressure to initiate cracks in the rock and the
propping agents will keep those cracks open. After fracturing, a bridge plug is set above the
perforations with coiled tubing (CT). This bridge plug will isolate the lower zone while the upper
zone is perforated and fractured (figure 1.8). This process repeats until all the zones are treated.
At the end of treatment, all the plugs are milled to allow full access to the wellbore and
commingled production of all the zones.
 Figure 1-10: Schematic of the plug-and-perf method (Singh, et al., 2017)

This method is simple and reliable, but it requires multiple runs of wireline and coiled tubing
intervention, thus leading to huge costs. The benefits and limitations of this method are shown in
table 1.1

Table 1-1: Benefits and limitations of plug-and-perf

Benefits Limitations
Unlimited number of stages Requires wireline or coiled tubing
Flexible placement stage Requires plug mill-out for full diameter
production
Limited refract options

b. Ball and sleeve

This method can be conducted in both open and cased hole. The completion design involves
placing isolation packers above and below a target zone and ball-activated fracking sleeves in
front of the target zone. First, the packers will be set as per the setting procedure. These can
be swelling
packers, mechanical packers or hydraulic packers. Anyhow, these isolation packers only have
sealing elastomers without slips. After the packers are set, a ball is dropped and lands in the ball
seat inside the fracking sleeve, and with applied pressure on the ball, the sleeve will shift open,
and the treatment can be pumped in the formation through the annulus. The ball will allow
isolation of the lower zone while treating the upper zone. This process repeats with a larger
diameter ball until all the zones are treated. The treatment is done in a single trip with a lower
cost compared to the plug-and-perf method most of the time. After treating all the zones, to do
commingled production, two options are available. If the reservoir pressure is high enough, the
reservoir fluid can push all the balls to the surface and production can start. The other option is to
use a dissolvable ball. This kind of balls dissolves after some time, leaving a flow path for the
produced fluid. The benefits and limitations of ball-and-sleeve completion are shown in table 1.2.

Figure 1-11: Schematic of a ball activated fracking sleeve technique in a horizontal well
(Mathur & Kumar, 2016)
 Table 1-2: Benefits and limitations of ball-and-sleeve completion

Benefits Limitations
Nonstop fracturing operations A limited number of stages
No mill-out required Reduced diameter
Stage placement is fixed once completed

c. Other MSHF completions

The other completion methods for MSHF are coiled tubing activated completion systems with
the use of a coiled tubing packer and a sand jet perforator, the use of straddle packers and the
use of chemical diverters (Economides & Nolte, 2000). But these methods are either unreliable,
risky or expensive.

To sum up, this chapter covered the operations done in well completions (casing cleaning, casing
perforation, running lower completion, running upper completion, installing a Christmas tree and
cleaning the well). The basic equipment to complete a well is presented, and the role of each tool
is given. Then the basic principle of hydraulic fracturing was explained, which is pumping a
special fluid made of water and additives in general until the pressure is high enough to fracture
the rock. The fractures will be kept open by injecting proppants in them. It was demonstrated that
hydraulic fracturing could significantly increase well productivity by increasing permeability
close to the wellbore. Finally, the most used completions techniques for multi-stage fracturing are
the plug- and-perf method and the ball-and-sleeve method. PNP requires running down a plug
after treating the lower zone. This technique can be costly since running the plug requires well
intervention and more rig time. The ball-and-sleeve method can allow fracturing multiple zones
in a single trip since the fracking sleeves can be opened by dropping the ball from the surface and
pumping fluid. The next chapter will present the methodology used to design completion for
MSHF and the tools and data used in this research.
 Methodology, tools, and data

Chapter 2: Methodology, tools, and data

This chapter will explain the methodology to design completion for hydraulic fracturing,
followed by an introduction of the tools used to perform the design and the data required.

2.1. Methodology
The purpose of the methodology is to obtain a design of hydraulic fracturing for a multi-stage
single trip completion. This will require five steps that are: data gathering, material selection,
equipment selection, completion design schematic and writing of completion procedures.

2.1.1. Data gathering

The first step to design any well completion is data gathering. These data can be measured or
predicted. Also, these data are uncertain to a certain degree, and this must be taken into account
when designing a completion. The minimum required data (table 2.1) to perform a completion
design for MSHF are reservoir data, well data, and production and injection objectives. The
reservoir data are the temperature and pressure, the fluid properties, such as the fluid specific
gravity and its composition. All these elements will have an impact on the choice of metallurgy
and elastomers. In fact, the equipment must be designed to work the entire life of the well or at
least the longest time possible. The combination of fluid properties, temperature and pressure, can
create a corrosive environment, and therefore some special materials are needed. The well data
are the measured depth (MD) and the well inclination. In some well configurations, some tools
could not be able to fit in the well; therefore, other alternatives will be more interesting. Finally,
the production and injection objectives are the expected production and injection rates, the
operational constraints, such as a single trip completion, the production or injection strategy that
involves selectivity and isolation of target zones. The proposed completion method and
equipment will highly depend on that.

17
 Table 2-1: Minimum required data

Reservoir data Temperature

Pressure
Fluid specific gravity
Fluid composition
Well data MD
inclination
Production objectives Expected production rates
Operational constraints
Production strategy
Injection objectives Expected injection rates
Operational constraints
Injection strategy

2.1.2. Material selection

Throughout the life of the well, the completion string is exposed to many environments that may
cause corrosion and failure of some parts. To extend the life of the well, care must be taken in
choosing appropriate materials, mainly metal, which is the core of every component and
elastomer that forms a seal within components.

a. Metals
Almost all the metal used in the industry is some form of steel. Steel is an alloy of iron and
carbon. The amount of carbon in steel is less than 2.5%, typically 0.3%. Other elements can be
added to improve corrosion resistance or strength. These alloying elements can be present up to
5% by weight in low-alloy steel. When these elements are in concentrations above 5%, the metal
is referred to as alloy steel. They are sometimes called corrosion-resistant alloys or CRAs. The
additional elements and their purposes are:

 Chromium: to improve corrosion resistance in the presence of carbon dioxide and

improve strength under high temperatures;
  Nickel: to improve the toughness and corrosion resistance in conjunction with chromium,
especially in the presence of hydrogen sulfide;
 Molybdenum and tungsten: to increase high-temperature strength;
 Titanium: to strengthen the steel;
 Niobium and vanadium: to increase strength.

As a first pass, figure 2.1 can be used to define appropriate tubing metallurgy. This drawing is
from Sumitomo Metals and incorporates some proprietary grades.

Figure 2-1: First-pass material selection

To select metallurgy, first, calculate the partial pressures of H 2S and CO2. Then read on the graph
the recommended metallurgy. The selected metallurgy must be able to withstand the
environmental constraints and be available at a good price. So even if H2S and CO2 are the
parameters that have
the most influence on corrosion mechanisms, the impact of temperature and economics must also
be investigated.

b. Seals
Various seals are used in completions. The most common elastomers and their applications are
listed in the table below.

Table 2-2: Common elastomers and their applications

Name Nitrile Hydrogenated Fluoro- Fluoro- Perfluoro-

nitrile elastomers elastomers elastomers
Material code NBR HNBR FKM FEPM FFKM
Trade name Therban Viton Aflas Chemraz
Temperature -20-250°F -10-300°F 0-400°F 70-450°F 30-450°F
Physical Excellent Good Poor Poor Poor
properties
H2S Poor (less Poor (less Poor Good Good
than 10 ppm) than 20 ppm)
Methanol Good Good Poor Good Good
ZnBr Not Poor Good Good Good
recommended
HCl Poor Poor Average Average Good
Aromatic HC Not Poor Good Poor Good
recommended

The seals must be chosen based on the fluids that will be present in the well. These fluids can be
the produced fluids, the injected fluids and the completion fluids. H2S is present in some
produced fluids, while methanol is usually injected to eliminate hydrates, ZnBr (Zinc Bromide) is
used as a completion brine, and HCl is required for acid stimulation.

2.1.3. Equipment selection

Once a completion method is chosen, the selected equipment must be available at a good price
and must work in expected operating conditions, temperature and pressure. For example, let’s
assume
the completion method requires a ball-activated fracking sleeve. Two sleeves are available. The
first one has a maximal working pressure of 10,000 psi, and the other has a maximal working
pressure of 5,000 psi. If the reservoir pressure is 4,700 psi and the safety factor is 10%, then the
ball-activated fracking sleeve is expected to work at a pressure of 5,170 psi. Therefore, the first
one will be chosen.

2.1.4. Well completion schematic

A completion design always includes a well completion schematic. This must include the well
trajectory and completion equipment assembled and set at the desired depth.

2.1.5. Completion procedures

There are two methods of writing procedures for completion operations:

 Write a detailed procedure that includes all the information required for the completion
operation.
 Write a summary procedure with a list of references for more detailed procedures.

The purpose of the procedures is to tell the completion installation team how to install the
completion in a safe, unambiguous way and to capture lessons learnt.

2.2. Tools
The software used to draw the completion schematic is PowerDraw 2019. It is a well schematic
drawing program for the oil and gas industry. It is a plug-in for Microsoft Visio. Therefore, Visio
is required before installing PowerDraw. The interface is presented in figure 2.2. There are
shapes for well and completions. We can drag and drop them to build a well schematic,
customize them, assemble them, calculate their depths, and write their descriptions in a table.
 Figure 2-2: PowerDraw interface

2.3. Data
Note: To preserve the client’s data confidentiality, the field will be named “X.” Only the data
used to design the completion will be presented here (Table 2.1).

In that field, a horizontal well was drilled and perforated. The objective of this work is to design
the lower completion so that 4 reservoir zones can be hydraulically fractured in a single trip. High
injection pressures (above reservoir breakdown pressure) and flow rates are expected. After
treatment, the productions of the 4 zones will be commingled. The reservoir pressure is 4200 psi,
and the temperature is 115°C. The produced fluid is an oil with API gravity of 32. It is a
naphthenic type of fluid, and its aromatic fraction is very low. H 2S content is low (5 ppm), and
CO2 content is high (2.5 mole %). The measured depth at the toe of the well is 3500 ft. The used
data are summarized in table 2.3.
 Table 2-3: Data for well completion design

Reservoir data Temperature = 115°C

Pressure = 4200 psi
Fluid API gravity = 32
Fluid type = Naphthenic
H2S content = 5 ppm; CO2 content = 2.5 mole
%
Well data MD at toe = 3500 ft
Inclination = 90° at 2600mMD
Production objectives Production strategy = 4 zones commingled
Zone 4:Top = 3200mMD, bottom = 3240mMD
Zone 3:Top = 3300mMD, bottom = 3315mMD
Zone 2:Top = 3360mMD, bottom = 3380mMD
Zone 1:Top = 3420mMD, bottom = 3450mMD
Injection objectives Operation constraints = fracture in a single trip
Injection pressure = High (Above reservoir
breakdown pressure)

The initial well schematic is illustrated in figure 2.3. The well is made of 2 casings (13-3/8”
surface casing at 750mMD, 9-5/8” intermediate casing at 1900mMD, both grades are L80) and 2
liners (7” liner at 2600mMD and 4-1/2” liner at 3500mMD, both grades are L80). The upper
completion is 4-1/2” with a tubing retrievable safety valve to control the well at 100mMD, a
chemical injection mandrel to allow chemical injection at 1600mMD, a gauge mandrel to
measure temperature and pressure at 2350mMD, a landing nipple above the production packer
and a landing nipple below the production packer to set plugs. The tubing size is 4-1/2” with a
nominal weight of 12 pounds per feet. Its grade is L80.The tubing string ends with a polished
bore receptacle or PBR and a seal assembly to seal in it. The PBR is used as a tieback for the 4-
1/2” liner so that the production string has a consistent diameter of 4-1/2”.
 Methodology, tools, and data

Tubing hanger

Control line
Cp 30’’@150mMD
TRSV 4-1/2’’ @100mMD

Chemical injection line

Gauge line
Csg 13-3/8’’@750mMD
Injection mandrel 4-1/2’’ @1600mMD
Top of liner 7’’@1700mMD
Tubing joints 4-1/2’’ 12.6#

Gauge mandrel 4-1/2’’ @2350mMD

Csg 9-5/8’’@1900mMD
Packer 7x4-1/2’’ @2400mMD

3200-3240mMD
3420-3450mMD

4th frac 3rd frac 2nd frac 1st frac

3360-
Liner 4-1/2’’@3500mMD
Liner 7’’@2600mMD 3380mMD
3300-3315mMD

Figure 2-3: Initial well schematic

24
 Results and discussion

Chapter 3: Results and discussion

This chapter presents the elements of the completion design, starting with the material selection,
then the completion method and well schematic, followed by equipment description and running
procedure. The technical feasibility will be discussed, as well as the benefits and limitations of
this completion.

3.1. Material selection

3.1.1. Metallurgy
The partial pressure of CO2 is proportional to the total pressure by the relation 𝑃𝐶𝑂2 = 𝑃 ∗
𝑚𝑜𝑙%𝐶𝑂2 (equation 3.1). At the reservoir pressure, it is therefore 4200 psi *2.5%, which is 105
psi. The partial pressure of H2S is proportional to the total pressure by the relation 𝑃𝐻2𝑆 = 𝑃 ∗

𝐻2𝑆 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 (equation 3.2). At the reservoir pressure, it is therefore 4200 psi * 5^10-6, which is
0.021 psi. Using the first-pass selection graph (figure 2.1), the recommended metallurgy is an
alloy with 13% of Chromium (13Cr). Moreover, the reservoir temperature is 115°C, which is
239°F. At this temperature, Sumitomo Metals Industry (2008) found that 13Cr has a lower
corrosion rate than 9Cr (figure 3.1).

Figure 3-1: Corrosion rates as a function of chromium content (Sumitomo Metals

Industries, 2008)
The corrosion of carbon steel in the presence of CO2 is explained by the following mechanisms
(Dugstad, 2006):

25
  CO2 hydrates and dissociates to HCO3- and CO32-
𝐶𝑂2 + 𝐻2𝑂 ↔ 𝐻2𝐶𝑂3
𝐻2𝐶𝑂3 ↔ 𝐻+ + 𝐻𝐶𝑂3−

𝐻𝐶𝑂− ↔ 𝐻+ + 𝐶𝑂2−
3 3

 CO2 diffuses to the metal surface and reacts cathodically at the surface by using electrons
and producing HCO3- and H2
1
𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻 𝑂 + 𝑒 − ↔ 𝐻 + 𝐻𝐶𝑂−
2 2 2 3
2

 The anodic process supplies the electrons by the dissolution of iron

𝐹𝑒 ↔ 𝐹𝑒2+ + 2𝑒−

The pH in solution increases, and when concentrations of Fe2+ and3 CO 2-

exceed the solubility
limit, the precipitation of FeCO3 can occur. Adding chromium to steel protects it from corrosion.
In fact, chromium will oxidize in place of iron, and this creates a protective layer on the metal
surface. Therefore, the selected metallurgy for this completion is 13Cr, an alloy of steel with 13%
of chromium.

3.1.2. Seals
The selection of the appropriate elastomer in sealing elements depends on the following
parameters from table 2.2: temperature, H2S content, presence of methanol, hydrogen chloride,
zinc bromide, and aromatic hydrocarbons. The reservoir temperature is 239°F in the application
range of nitrile, the H2S content is 5 ppm, which is less than 10 ppm, and the fluid is not
aromatic. Furthermore, acid stimulation is not needed here, so there will be no presence of HCl.
And since there will be no injection of methanol (it is injected when there are hydrates in the well
and hydrates form only in low temperatures, which is not the case here), nitrile should be the
most appropriate elastomer for the sealing elements. But the operating temperature is too close to
the upper limit of nitrile temperatures. In this case, the best solution is to use hydrogenated nitrile
or HNBR. It has good physical properties and can resist higher temperatures.
 3.2. Completion method
It was discussed before that the two most commonly used techniques for a multi-stage hydraulic
fracturing are the plug-and-perf method and the ball-and-sleeve method. In this case, the most
appropriate method is ball-and-sleeve. The plug-and-perf method requires multiple wireline and
coiled tubing runs to place the fracturing fluid. This increases the time and costs to perform the
fracture treatment. And the operation constraint was clearly to perform the fracture treatment in a
single trip so that less rig time is needed and high costs are saved.

a. Economic analysis
To estimate the cost of a method, we will add the cost of the equipment to the rig cost. The
pumping charges, fluid and proppants costs are the same for both plug-and-perf and ball-and-
sleeve. The results are shown in the following tables.

Table 3-1: Equipment cost for the “ball-and-sleeve” method

Item Cost/unit ($) Unit Cost ($)

Fracking sleeve 9,000 3 27,000
Non-prep toe valve 4,000 1 4,000
Isolation valve 5,000 1 5,000
Isolation packer 3,500 5 17,500
Bullnose 1,000 1 1,000
Total cost ($) 54,500

Table 3-2: Equipment cost for “plug-and-perf”method

Item Cost/unit ($) Unit Cost ($)

Bridge plug 8,000 3 24,000
Total cost ($) 24,000

When comparing the cost of the required equipment for plug-and-perf and ball-and-sleeve, it
appears that plug-and-perf completion is most economical. But the plug-and-perf method requires
coiled-tubing interventions for perforating and setting plug. It was estimated that the time to rig
up (RU) and rig down (RD) between stages is 3 hours. It takes 1 hour to pump the treatment for
each stage. And the rig cost in shallow water offshore was estimated at 400,000$ per day. So one
hour will cost 16,667$ approximately. The operation costs for both projects are shown in the
following tables.

Table 3-3: Operation cost for “ball-and-sleeve” method

Operation Cost/Time ($/hr) Time (hr) Cost ($)

Stage treatment 16,667 4 66,667
Total cost ($) 66,667

Table 3-4: Operation cost for "plug-and-perf" method

Operation Cost/Time ($/hr) Time (hr) Cost ($)

Stage treatment 16,667 4 66,667
RU/RD 16,667 12 200,000
Total cost ($) 266,667

Now for ball-and-sleeve completion, the costs are 54,500$ for equipment and 66,667$ for
operation. The total cost is, therefore, 121,167$. For the plug-and-perf completion, the costs are
24,000$ for equipment and 266,667$ for operation. The total cost, in this case, is 290,667$.

In this case, ball-and-sleeve completion is more economical. So this is the completion that will be
designed, and its technical feasibility will be discussed here.

b. Equipment selection
In this case, the reservoir pressure is 4,200 psi. Using a safety factor of 10%, the maximum
working pressure is 4,620 psi. Therefore, equipment must be rated at 5,000 psi. Also, the working
pressure of the equipment should be above 125°C.
 c. Completion method selection guide for similar designs
Our study made us implement the following selection guide for multi-stage hydraulic fracturing
completions. This can be used for similar completion designs. It will choose between the two
most used methods that are PNP and ball-and-sleeve.

 The first parameter to evaluate is the well type. If it is an open hole, the completion
method must be the ball-and-sleeve.
 If it is a cased hole, and the number of stages is low (less than 20), then the ball-and-
sleeve completion must be used
 If the number of stages is between 20 and 40 and the production rates are low, then the
ball- and-sleeve completion must be used. Else, the plug-and-perf method must be used.
 Finally, if the number of stages is higher than 40, then the plug and perf method must be
used

This selection guide is illustrated in figure 3.2. It is based on a comparison between economic
analysis of PNP and ball-and-sleeve. Since the flow rate is reduced in the ball-and-sleeve
completion, the net present value or NPV of PNP becomes greater than the NPV of ball-and-
sleeve for a high number of stages.
Figure 3-2: A selection guide for the completion method in MSHF
 3.3. Well schematic
Tubing hanger

TRSV @100mMD

Csg 13-3/8’’
@750mMD

Injection mandrel @1600mMD

Csg 9-5/8’’
@1900mMD
Gauge mandrel @ 2350mMD

Lower completion
Production packer @ 2400mMD
Isolation packer Ball frac sleeve Isolation packer

PBR and seal assembly

Liner 7’’@2600mMD Liner 4-1/2’’@3500mMD

Figure 3-3: Proposed completion design

Figure 3.3 illustrates the proposed completion design. In the lower completion, a ball and sleeve
method was proposed. This consists of 5 isolation packers, 3 ball-activated fracking sleeves, 1
pressure-activated fracking sleeve or Non-prep toe valve, 1 isolation valve and a bullnose.
 3.3.1. Isolation packer
The proposed isolation packer is a hydraulically-set packer for the 4-1/2” liner. This packer sets
when sufficient internal pressure is applied to the packer. The packer expands and sets on the
liner. The role of this packer is to isolate the annulus between the completion string and the
casing in front of a producing zone. The only way to produce this zone is, therefore, to establish a
flow path between this annulus and the production string. 5 packers are used between the 4
producing zones to isolate between them.

3.3.2. Ball-activated fracking sleeve

The ball-activated fracking sleeve is used to establish a flow path between the annulus and the
completion string. Its size is 3-1/2” so that it can fit inside a 4-1/2” liner. It has large ports on the
outside of its body covered by a sliding sleeve when it is in a closed position. To open this sleeve,
a ball must land on a ball seat inside the ball frac sleeve, and then pressure is applied above the
ball to shift the sleeve and open the ports (figure 3.4). The lowermost frac sleeve has a ball seat
and a corresponding frac ball of the smallest size. These sizes increase as we are moving upward,
meaning the second ball frac sleeve has a ball seat and corresponding frac ball of a bigger size,
and the last ball frac sleeve has a ball seat and a corresponding frac ball of the biggest size. This
allows each frac ball to reach its corresponding ball seat easily.

Figure 3-4: Activation process of a ball-activated fracking sleeve

3.3.3. Non-prep toe valve

The Non-prep toe valve is placed in front of the first zone to be treated. Its activation is achieved
by applying hydraulic pressure. It has an internal rupture disc that is engineered to rupture at a
precise pressure. Once the disc is ruptured, the ports of the valve open (figure 3.5). This type of
valve is placed in front of the first zone to save costs. In fact, the ball-activated fracking sleeve is
very expensive, and since when treating the first zone, there is no need to isolate a zone below,
then it is not worth using a ball-activated fracking sleeve in this zone.

Figure 3-5: Non-prep toe valve

3.3.4. Isolation valve

The valve is a ball-activated type valve. It stays open while being run in the hole, and this enables
the fluid circulation through it. When the desired depth is reached, a ball is dropped from the
surface and pumped down until it reaches the valve and lads out in its seat (figure 3.6). An
applied pressure causes the valve piston to shear the shear screws and shifts down, permanently
closing the circulation ports. In the closed position, the valve becomes an internal and external
pressure barrier. The internal barrier feature allows us to set the hydraulic packers and actuate the
fracking valves. The outer barrier feature isolates the liner from wellbore pressure.

Ball landed in ball seat

Figure 3-6: Isolation valve

3.3.5. Bullnose
The bullnose (figure 3.7) is a device used at the end of the string. Its primary function is to
prevent flow from entering the bottom end of the string, whilst its rounded nose design provides a
positives guide while running in hole.
 Figure 3-7: Bullnose

3.4. Running procedure

The running process of the lower completion will be done in 10 steps. Initially, the well is
perforated and filled with killing fluid (figure 3.8). A killing fluid is a fluid with a specific gravity
higher than the reservoir fluid equivalent specific gravity so that its pressure is higher than the
reservoir pressure. This fluid will then prevent the well from producing. To perform the fracture
treatment, the first step is to make up lower completion and run in the hole until TD with a
service tool (figure 3.9). The completion tools are screwed together and lowered in the well one
after another, starting from the bottom, which is bullnose. Some tubing joints or pup joints can be
added to the string for spacing out. In other words, to place a tool at a precise depth, there is a
need to add some tubing joints to reach that depth.

Perforated well filled with killing fluid

Figure 3-8: 4-1/2" liner initially

Figure 3-9: Lower completion RIH

The next step is to test all pumping lines to make sure they can deliver the required flow rates.
Then a ball is dropped to land in the ball seat of the isolation valve, and when the pressure
reaches the required pressure, the isolation valve closes. Now it is time to set the packers by
applying
internal pressure (figure 3.10). These packers will be set at a specified pressure. Of course, the
uppermost packer will set first, followed by the lower packers.

Figure 3-10: Packers are set, and the first stage is ready to be pumped

The next step is to pump the first stage to fracture the first reservoir. The fracturing fluid is
pumped from the surface, then through the lower completion. At this point, all the ball-activated
fracking sleeves are closed. The non-prep toe valve will open at the required pressure and allow
the fracturing fluid to enter the annulus between the casing and zone 1 (figure 3.11).

Figure 3-11: Fluid flow when treating zone 1

The next step is to treat zone 2 and isolate zone 1 at the same time. The smallest ball is dropped
in the well and guided by the fluid to the lowest ball seat (figure 3.12).

Figure 3-12: First ball is dropped in the well and guided

The ball reaches the first ball seat, and when enough pressure is applied to it, the sleeve shifts and
opens the ports (figure 3.13).
 Figure 3-13: The first ball fracking sleeve is opened, and zone 2 is ready for treatment

The second stage is pumped from the surface through the lower completion. The ball-activated
fracking sleeves in front of zone 3 and zone 4 are still closed. The fluid will enter the annular
between the casing and zone 2. The ball prevents the fluid from going to zone 1. After treating
zone 2, the next size ball is dropped from the surface and reaches the seat of the ball-activated
fracking sleeve in front of zone 3. When enough pressure is applied, the ball-activated fracking
sleeve is opened, and zone 3 is treated (figure 3.14).

Figure 3-14: Treatment of zone 3

After treating zone 3, the largest ball is dropped from the surface and guided until it reaches the
seat of the uppermost ball fracking sleeve. When enough pressure is applied above the ball, the
sleeve shifts and the ports are open. Zone 4 is treated while the other zones are isolated (Figure
3.15).
 Figure 3-15: Treatment of zone 4

Now that all the 4 zones are treated, the service tool can be pulled out of the hole. The balls will
dissolve after a few hours, and the treated zone can be produced at the same time.

3.5. Benefits and limitations

This completion method and equipment allow us to treat the four zones in a single trip and later
produce all the zones simultaneously. The method is reliable and straightforward, but this can
work only if 3-1/2 equipment is available.

3.6. Recommendations
 In this case, the reservoir pressure is 4,200 psi. Using a safety factor of 10%, the
maximum working pressure is 4,620 psi. Therefore, equipment rated at 5,000 psi could
work, but since it is too close to the limit, we would recommend 10,000 psi rated
equipment. Detailed economic analysis must be conducted to find out if using 10,000 psi
equipment is profitable.
 A fracture treatment design is tied to multiple disciplines, so the completion team must
work closely with production engineers to optimize pumping rates and pressures. Also,
corrosion engineers must be part of the team and carry further work to validate the
proposed metallurgy.
 Conclusion
Hydraulic fracturing is a technology used since 1950 to produce tight oil. It consists of pumping a
special fluid at a pressure high enough to initiate cracks in the rock. This process can significantly
improve well productivity in low permeability reservoirs. For economic reasons, multiple
reservoir zones are often produced by a single well, and when there is a need to fracture them, it
is very challenging because one zone must be isolated while treating another zone. To reduce the
costs of operations, the question was asked if multi-stage hydraulic fracturing could be done in a
single trip. To make MSHF a successful operation, all aspects must be planned ahead. This
implies selecting the most appropriate materials, completion method and equipment. In the field
“X,” a completion design to fracture 4 zones in a single trip was required. We found out the best
materials were an alloy of steel with 13% of chromium for metallurgy and Hydrogenated nitrile
for sealing elements. Chromium adds resistance to steel in a corrosive environment, and at 239°F,
13% of Chromium gives better results than 9%. Both nitrile and hydrogenated nitrile could be
used in the presence of the produced fluid, completion fluid and fracturing fluid, but the
downhole temperature was very close to the upper limit of nitrile applications, hydrogenated
nitrile was finally validated. The best completion method, in this case, was the ball and sleeve
method because it is the only one that can be performed in a single trip, and it is economical. To
fracture the 4 zones in a single trip, 5 isolations packers, 3 ball-activated fracking sleeves, 1 non-
prep toe valve, 1 isolation valve and 1 bullnose will be needed. The packers will isolate the
annulus between the completion string and the casing, leaving this annulus as the only way to
fracture and produce a target zone. The ball- activated fracking sleeves will isolate the lower zone
while treating the upper zone, and later dissolution of the ball will permit commingled
production. The non-prep toe valve has the same role as the fracking sleeve, but it is more
economical to use it for the first stage. Finally, the isolation valve will allow setting packers.

This case was a typical case where the ball and sleeve completion was the best due to the lower
number of stages. To be able to use the ball-and-sleeve method for a high number of stages,
further research is required so that the limited use of balls can be replaced by another way of
opening the sleeves. RFID (radio frequency identification) could be an interesting option. Also, to
select the most appropriate equipment, further work must be done with the help of the production
engineers designing the fracture treatment and corrosion engineers for material selection.

38
 References

1. Aminzadeh, F., 2019. Hydraulic fracturing and well stimulation. 1st ed. Hoboken: Jon
Wiley & Sons.

2. Bellarby, J., 2009. Well completion design. 1st ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

3. Crumpton, H., 2018. Well control for completions and interventions. 1st ed. Oxford:
Elsevier.

4. Dugstad, A., 2006. Fundamental aspects of CO2 metal loss corrosion - part 1: mechanism.
Houston, International corrosion conference.

5. Economides, M., Hill, D., Zhu, D. & Elig-Economides, C., 2013. Petroleum production
systems. 2nd ed. Westford: Prentice-Hall.

6. Economides, M. & Nolte, K., 2000. Reservoir Stimulation. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley
& Sons.

7. ENI, 1999. Completion design manual. 1st ed. Rome: AGIP.

8. Guo, B., Lyons, W. & Ghalambor, A., 2007. Petroleum production engineering: a
computer-assisted approach. 1st ed. Oxford: Elsevier.

9. Jabbari, H. & Benson, S., 2013. Hydraulic fracturing design optimization - Bakken case
study. San Francisco, American Rock Mechanics Association, pp. 1-6.

10. King, G., 1998. An introduction to the basics of well completions, stimulations and
workovers. 2nd ed. Tulsa: Georges E. King.

11. Kleinberg, R., Paltsev, S., Boersma, T. & Hobbs, D., 2018. Tight oil market dynamics:
Benchmarks, breakeven points, and inelasticities. Energy Economics, 70(February 2018),
pp. 70-83.

12. Mathur, P. & Kumar, N., 2016. Contrast between plug-and-perf method and ball and
sleeve method for horizontal well stimulation.

13. Renpu, W., 2011. Advanced well completion engineering. Oxford: Elsevier.

39
14. RGIT MONTROSE, 2009. Completion design manual. 1st ed. Aberdeen: RGIT
MONTROSE.

15. SCHLUMBERGER, 2019. Defining completion. [Online]

Available at: https://www.slb.com/resource-library/oilfield-review/defining-
series/defining-completion

16. Singh, A., Soriano, L. & Lal, M., 2017. Comparison of multi-stage fracture placement
methods for economic learning and unconventional completion optimization: A case
history. Texas, Society of petroleum engineers, p. 20.

17. Speight, J., 2016. Handbook of hydraulic fracturing. Hoboken: Jon Wiley & Sons.

18. Sumitomo Metals Industries, 2008. OCTG materials and corrosion in oil and gas
production. Tokyo, Sumitomo Metals Industries.

40