SPE 168301

Composite: Is Multi-Plug Milling That Fast?

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPECTWI/proceedings-pdf/14CTWI/1-14CTWI/D011S003R003/1476427/spe-168301-ms.pdf/1 by CNPC USA, Peng Cheng on 13 June 2022

C.M. Cromer, I. Aviles, N. Li, Schlumberger

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference & Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 25-26 March 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessar ily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohi bited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Multi-stage stimulation by use of composite plugs (CP) for isolation has been in practice for over 15 years in North America.
It continues to be a cost effective solution for shale plays requiring hydraulic stimulation of horizontal wells. Currently, there
are dozens of plug venders in North America that supplied hundreds of thousands of plugs to the market. In order to perform
effectively, plugs must convey down long horizontal wells, deploy at the appropriate depth in a well, hold pressure during a
frac, and be removed utilizing conventional wellbore cleanout techniques, which in most areas involve milling with coiled
tubing. The milling aspect of designing a plug can be particularly challenging, as it can be difficult to simulate without
conducting a full scale test. Additionally, there are many different types of bits or mills to choose from. Thus, testing is
required when designing a plug to optimize milling performance. Failure to do so can result in increased milling time and
cost, something unacceptable in these tight-economic plays.

Mill out testing during the qualification phase is key to the plug performance in real bottomhole conditions. Multiple plugs
are used in a single well that ideally will be milled out sequentially. Thus performing a mill test with only one plug may
result in an optimistic view of plug milling. There are several important parameters in evaluating milling performance or
millability in a test, including: overall millout time, penetration rate, debris size, and stump size. The millout time per plug in
a well is defined as the average time taken to mill through a single plug, starting when the mill contacts the top of the plug
and ending when the plug‟s anchoring mechanism gives way. This leaves the bottom part, or stump, un-milled. The shape
and size of the stump may significantly affect how the debris is conveyed to the next plug as well as the milling of the next
plug. Millout time must calculate as an average of no less than two plugs milled in sequence.

This paper will describe the best practices for determining the millability of a CP in a multiple plug scenario, and show how
milling tests can be used to improve the design of a plug and optimize mill selection. This in turn maximizes the chances of
successfully and efficiently removing CPs in the multi-zone treatment application, with the overall goal of improving the
economics of these wells.

Introduction

The plug and perforate completion method (plug and perf) has been proved to be one of the most reliable and flexible
multistage well completion techniques. Often considered a conventional method, plug and perf involves the use of a
casing/liner string throughout the lateral, directional or completely horizontal well and several temporary isolation devices
otherwise known as frac plugs (Lehr, 2011). Typically the perforating guns and composite frac plugs are deployed by use of
wireline (also known as electric line) from the surface and are pumped down to the desired zone. Once the plug is set and the
stage is isolated, the perforation guns are then pulled back up-hole and fired along the interval, creating perforation clusters.
At this point, the wireline guns can be pulled out of the borehole and the fracturing operation can be undertaken. The
perforation and fracture sequence can be repeated for an unlimited number of stages to optimize the production of the well.
After all intervals are stimulated, a workover rig or coiled tubing units are used to mill out all the plugs and clean the
wellbore before the well is put on production.
2 SPE 168301

Various studies have showed that greater than 70-80% of new well horizontal completions use plug and perf technique,
currently dominating the unconventional markets (Frasure, 2013). It is estimated that between 140,000 and 200,000 CPs were
installed and milled last year in the US alone. Meanwhile, exploration of unconventional plays in international areas is
heavily contingent on the multistage stimulation techniques successfully developed in North America. Therefore, Plug and
Perf technology and techniques could ultimately play an important role globally.

The challenge of multi-plug removal

CPs require removal from the well bore after use, due to their nature of temporary isolation of frac stages. In this time-

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPECTWI/proceedings-pdf/14CTWI/1-14CTWI/D011S003R003/1476427/spe-168301-ms.pdf/1 by CNPC USA, Peng Cheng on 13 June 2022

sensitive industry, operators often rely on Coiled Tubing (CT) units instead of a workover rigs to remove CPs. Historically,
operators have sought to remove the maximum numbers of plugs per day by finding the plug supplier that has the shortest
mill time through one composite plug. However, there is growing awareness among operators that the difficulty to move
from plug to plug due to stumps and plug debris left in between plugs deserves some consideration as well (Craig, 2012).
This has led to new composite plug designs that incorporate features with the goal of effective removal of plug with
maximum overall efficiency, not the shortest single plug milling time.

CPs consist of several components that vary from design to design in geometry and material. Generally though, the plug
consists of one long part, the mandrel, which acts as the foundation of the tool, and several other parts that are slid on the
mandrel. The geometry is typically such to maximize the use of lightweight, composite, materials that are able withstand the
loading created by setting and pressuring above the plug, yet mill efficiently. The composites used are typically made of a
high temperature epoxy reinforced with high strength glass. Besides composite materials, a typical CP will also contain
metallic shear pins or rings to assist with conveyance downhole before setting, metallic slips or ceramic gripping mechanisms
to anchor the plug into the casing, and a rubber packing element to provide a seal on the casing ID. Figure 1 shows the
components of a typical composite frac plug. Not shown in the diagram is the hollowed out inner diameter (ID) of the plug
that allows flow to pass through the plug until the top end is sealed by a ball that is normally dropped from surface after the
plug is set.

Top of Plug

Upper Slips

Packing Element

Lower Slips

Bottom of Plug

Figure 1: Diagram of a Frac Plug

When designing a CP, materials with low densities are selected; the lower the density of material the greater chance that the
material will flow back to surface when milled into pieces. Since metals have a relatively high density compared to
composites, generally 2-4 times higher, their use in CPs is limited. In addition to material selection, there are certain aspects
of a CP‟s design that can improve milling performance, including limiting spinning components and controlling size of loose
debris, discussed further later in this paper. When milling, a plug will generally stay engaged in the casing until the lower
slips release. As soon as the lower slips release, the leftover pieces of the plug will need to be conveyed to the top of the next
plug to continue milling. These leftover pieces will consist of a large section of the bottom of the plug, hereafter referred to as
the stump, as well as loose debris from the slips and the rest of the plug that were too large to pass between the outer diameter
(OD) of the mill and the ID of the casing.
SPE 168301 3

Mill Testing

As the horizontal section of new wells become longer, the challenges of plug removal increase. Helical spiral in the wellbore
and weight on bit complicate the mill out job, especially in multi-plug wells. (Castaneda, 2011). In order to fully evaluate the
milling performance of a plug, multi-plug milling tests can be performed. Mill testing is an important way to gain
information on the milling characteristics of a plug with a specific bottomhole assembly (BHA) before running in the field.
To simulate bottomhole conditions, the following steps are recommended as a minimum when evaluating the performance of
CP in the field.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPECTWI/proceedings-pdf/14CTWI/1-14CTWI/D011S003R003/1476427/spe-168301-ms.pdf/1 by CNPC USA, Peng Cheng on 13 June 2022

Preparing the Plugs

In these tests, plugs are set in a typical casing size according to their operating range. These plugs can be set in air, however
to best simulate operating conditions, it is recommended that plugs are set in water at a temperature corresponding to the
temperature of a typical well. After set, pressure is applied to the top of a plug to simulate the pressure that the plug would
see in a typical frac job. This ensures that all the plug components are in the “pressure” position, as some plug designs will
shift or stroke slightly from the “set” position after pressure is applied to the top. After pressure is applied, the plug should
continue to be soaked in water at temperature, with some pressure applied to simulate the hydrostatic pressure of the well.
The time of the actual soak out in the field will vary with well to well as many times it will depend on the availability of a
coiled tubing team or rig. For the test though, it is important that all plugs are soaked the same amount of time to eliminate
adding unwanted variables to the test.

The Test Set-Up

Depending on the type of test equipment and resources available, the test set-up will vary. Again, it is important to be as
consistent as possible across all mill tests that are done to maintain control of the test variables. Generally, the test set-up will
consist of two different strings. The first being the target string and the second being the milling string. The target string will
consist of the casing in which the plugs were set. Two to three casings with plugs set and pressure tested will need to be
connected together (assuming one pressure tested plug per casing). Care should be taken in ensuring the casings are properly
connected, as a large amount of torque can be generated by the motor depending on the type selected. A large amount of
water will need to be flushed through the system during the test. This water will contain cuttings of varying size from the
plug during the millout, and these cuttings will need to be collected for evaluation. Thus the target string will need to contain
an opening above the plugs to allow for ejection and circulation of water. The ejected water will need to contain a screen or
several screens to filter the returning water and collect cuttings. The ejected filtered water will then have to return to the
water source of the milling string. A diagram of the Target string can be found in Figure 2.

Opening for Ejection of Returns

Screen for Debris Collection

Water Collection and

Return to Source

Test Casing w/ Plug #1 Set

Test Casing w/ Plug #2 Set

Figure 2: Diagram of Target String

4 SPE 168301

The milling string will consist of four main parts: the mill/bit, the motor, the weight, and the water source. The water source
available may limit the motor selection. Weight will be required to move through the plug. The amount of weight required
may depend on the bit selection, the penetration rate desired, and the cutting size desired. In addition to this equipment, there
will be a data acquisition system in place to record the following during the test: flow rate, water pressure to motor, weight on
bit (WOB), and ROP. A diagram of the milling string can be found in Figure 3.

Water

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPECTWI/proceedings-pdf/14CTWI/1-14CTWI/D011S003R003/1476427/spe-168301-ms.pdf/1 by CNPC USA, Peng Cheng on 13 June 2022

Weight Pump/Source

Drill String Water From

Collection

Motor

Crossover - Motor to Bit/Mill

Bit/Mill

Figure 3: Diagram of Milling String

The Test

Throughout the test, the flow rate is kept within the optimum range for the motor. The pressure is monitored and the weight
on bit adjusted within a predetermined range to maximize the weight on bit but minimize stalls. Any stalls should be
recorded. When milling through a plug, varying penetration rates will be seen depending on the design of the plug, the
materials used in the plug, and the operation parameters. It is important to note that when monitoring the milling, the bit/mill
will not mill through the entire length of the first plug. The plug is milled until it falls away (generally when the lower slips
are reached), then the rest of the plug, the stump, will fall down or have to be pushed to the next plug. After milling through
the first plug, milling should proceed through the next plug without stop or removal/flush of this debris. This helps simulate
well milling conditions as normally several plugs will be milled before short tripping. The screens filtering the debris flowing
back should be changed when moving to each new plug to separate what comes back with each plug and help with the
analysis. After milling through the final plug, (i.e. when the last plug is pushed downwards), the test should be stopped. The
fixture should be broke down and the remaining „stump‟ from the bottom plug, including any leftover debris should be
collected for analysis.

Evaluation

The data available from a mill test should consist of the following: total time to mill through each plug, ROP, flow rate,
WOB, pressure, number of stalls, debris flowed back from each plug, and leftover debris (stump and other remnants of the
milled plug that were unable to flow back). All data must be taken collectively to evaluate the overall performance of the
plug with the motor and bit selection. This data can plotted on a displacement axis and mapped adjacent to a set position
layout of a plug to better understand how the mill passes through each section of the plug. Figure 4 shows one example of
such of graph, where the ROP has been plotted on a displacement axis for a mill test consisting of two plugs.

In analyzing the graphs it can be seen that the ROP of the first plug was less than 1/3 than the one for the second, identical
plug. Further investigation showed that the top plug released about halfway through the lower slips as expected. When
moving to the bottom plug, the stump and leftover debris from the top plug had to be removed/milled before the milling of
the bottom plug started. This resulted in slower ROP and several stalls. The most likely cause to this slowdown was the
interaction between the leftover debris and the stump from the upper plug. Once through this debris/stump, the milling rate
picked up again. The second plug released again upon reaching the lower slips.
SPE 168301 5

Stall Stall
Stall Stall
Stall Stall
Stall

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPECTWI/proceedings-pdf/14CTWI/1-14CTWI/D011S003R003/1476427/spe-168301-ms.pdf/1 by CNPC USA, Peng Cheng on 13 June 2022

Figure 4: ROP Graphs of Mill Test 1

The information taken from tests such as the one above was extremely valuable in the CP design. Features to improve milling
performance in a multiple plug setting were incorporated to reflect actual field behavior at bottomhole conditions. Length of
the stump, release point, and debris size were optimized for multi-plug milling. Additionally, the slip design and rubber
design were engineered to help improve the ROP in those areas of the plug. The inner workings of the plug were altered to
incorporate features to help prevent the spinning of components during millout.

The final plug design was tested in the same mill set up as the previous tests, with the exact same milling parameters used,
including the same initial setting/pressuring of the plugs in the same casing weight, the same mill/motor combination, and the
same operational parameters. The outcome was remarkable when compared to the earlier milling results, including a total
mill time on the first and second plugs of 10 minutes and 14 minutes respectively as well as eliminating the stalls seen in the
previous tests. The ROP graphs of the test are shown in Figure 5. A large increase in the ROP was seen in the composite
sections of the first plug, most likely due to the anti-rotation features added to the geometry that prevented component
spinning. In the second plug, the ROP was overall much higher. There was still a slowdown at the end of the stump most
likely due to unavoidable loose debris but the rate quickly picked back up.

Figure 5: ROP Graphs of Mill Test 2

Examples for the stump and the leftover debris from the bottom plug of the second milling test are shown in Figure 6.
6 SPE 168301

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPECTWI/proceedings-pdf/14CTWI/1-14CTWI/D011S003R003/1476427/spe-168301-ms.pdf/1 by CNPC USA, Peng Cheng on 13 June 2022

Figure 7:
Figure 6: Pictures
Pictures of
of Stump
Stump and
and Remaining
Remaining Debris
Debris from
from Leftover
Leftover after
after 22nd
nd Plug Millout
Plug Millout of Test 2

Overall, the milling test clearly showed that the milling of two plugs in series was key to the analysis, as it showed that the
debris and stump from the first plug played a large role in the milling of the second plug. Not simulated in this test is the fact
that most plugs are set several hundred feet or so apart, meaning that particularly in horizontal wells, the stump and loose
debris would have to be pushed by CT a long distance through casing that has been perforated through. Many times the
buildup of sand along these intervals will create even further problems/issues with this debris. Thus reducing the amount and
size of this debris should significantly decrease the time it takes to travel between plugs when milling.

Other Tests

In the example described above, a mill test was used to help evaluate a CP by testing and evaluating the results of multi-plug
milling. Mill testing can also provide other data though on a particular plug design by systematically varying one of the
operational parameters or equipment (Li, 2013). One such example would be changing out the type of mill or bit. Different
mills/bits will have different penetration rates and debris size that depend on the plug geometry. Another option would be
changing out the motor being used to increase/decrease the amount of torque used to mill up the plug. Ultimately the goal
would be to find the best combination that maximizes the penetration rate while limiting the size of the debris in the returns
as well as the amount of loose debris left with the stump. Once an optimum configuration is reached in the test set-up, the
configuration should be run in an actual well with the data being closely monitored to ensure that the any changes made
result in improvements to overall milling performance.

Conclusion

Mill testing is an effective way of simulating the milling/removal of a CP in a lab environment. It requires significant initial
resources and set-up time to gather all the required equipment; however the data obtained is useful in evaluating the design of
a plug as well as determining the appropriate BHA for removal. As discussed, milling at least two plugs is essential to the
test, as it allows for a more realistic evaluation of a plug‟s milling performance, factoring in the stump and the unmilled
debris leftover after the initial plug. The evaluation of the size and amount of this debris also can help determine whether any
issues will be seen in the field moving plug to plug. The authors of this paper recognize the need for multi-plug milling when
evaluating the removal time of a CP. The ability to mill consecutive plugs during testing and qualification is key to
understanding the actual performance of the plug when exposed to bottomhole conditions.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Schlumberger Technology Corporation for the opportunity to present this paper.

Nomenclature

CP – Composite Plug
CT – Coiled tubing
BHA – Bottomhole assembly
ID – Inner diameter
OD – Outer diameter
ROP – Rate of penetration
WOB – Weight on bit
SPE 168301 7

References

Castaneda, J.C., Schenider, C.E., and Brunskill, D. 2011. Coiled Tubing Milling Operations: Successful Application of an
Innovative Variable Water Hammer Extended-Reach BHA To Improve End Load Efficiencies of a PDM in Horizontal
Wells. Paper SPE 143346. Presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and
Exhibition, 5-6 April 2011, The Woodlands, Texas.

Craig, Steven, Harris, Jeffrey, Lehr, Douglas, Brandt, Nathan, 2012. Best Practices for Composite Plug Milling. Paper SPE

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPECTWI/proceedings-pdf/14CTWI/1-14CTWI/D011S003R003/1476427/spe-168301-ms.pdf/1 by CNPC USA, Peng Cheng on 13 June 2022

154060. Presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, 27-28 March,
2012, The Woodlands, Texas.

Gregg Frasure, Oilfield Explorer. July, 2013. http://www.oilfieldexplorer.com/blog/2013/07/20/plug-and-perf-vs-oh-

completions/ (Accessed on 12/02/13).

Lehr, D.J. and Cramer, D.D. 2011. Best Practices for Multizone Stimulation Using Composite Plugs. SPE Paper 142744.
Presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, 5-6 April 2011, The
Woodlands, Texas.

Li, J., Lindsey, B.J., Rahimov, K. and Smith, S. 2013. Combining Tools To Increase Efficiency in Challenging Wellbore
Cleanouts. Paper SPE 163894. Presented at the 2013 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference &
Exhibition, March 26 - 27, 2013 2013, The Woodlands, Texas.