SPE 77775
New Technique Restores Initial Fluid Efficiency Observed in Mini-Frac and Results in
Increased TSO Frac-Pack Success
W. D. Holcomb, SPE, T. J. Landry, SPE, B. A. Comeaux, SPE, M. J. Usie, SPE, BJ Services Co., J. E. Smith, SPE, and
L. F. Rivas, SPE, ChevronTexaco Corp.
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September–2 October 2002.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
It has been observed that pumping a mini-frac prior to a TSO
Frac-pack can impact the effectiveness of the frac-pack. The
calculated fluid loss parameters determined in the diagnostic
test are often not valid for the main fracture design due to the
residual effect of the mini-frac and/or step-rate fluids. A
technique will be presented in this paper which allows the
calculated fluid loss parameters from the diagnostic test to be
used reliably without excessive waiting time for the reservoir
to recover to its original leak off characteristics. Fifty plus
treatments were evaluated to develop a technique which
makes this possible. The use of this technique resulted in a
significant change in the success of the TSO designed
treatments - success being a TSO type pressure increase while
pumping. The success rate to achieve designed TSO, by
incorporating the changes described in the paper, was
increased over 20 percent with a reduction in time between
diagnostic tests and the main frac.
In the wells associated with this paper, a borate-crosslinked
fluid was used for a mini-frac treatment followed by a step-
rate test prior to the main proppant laden frac-pack. The fluid
was designed with minimal polymer loading for the well
conditions. The resulting mini-frac tests had low fluid
efficiencies. It was originally thought that using this fluid,
followed by injection of a linear step-rate fluid, would
minimize the changes observed in fluid efficiency between the
diagnostic test and the main fracture treatment. However, the
effect of the diagnostic test on fluid leak off still resulted in
less than desired TSO predictability.
A technique of adding a pH control additive into the final
portion of the step-rate test fluid was found to successfully
allow the use of the observed diagnostic test results, honoring
the efficiency from the mini-frac test. The quantity and
placement of the pH control agent in the step-rate protocol
were dependent upon well conditions. The waiting time
between the diagnostic test and the main treatment was
reduced since a positive, controlled change was applied. The
optimum pH reduction for the desired effect was determined
in the laboratory and designed into each treatment depending
upon well conditions.
Introduction
The procedural change of placing the step-rate test after the
minifrac has become fairly well established in the Gulf of
Mexico (1) . The injection of non-crosslinked gel containing
high breaker concentrations into the fracture has also been
shown to be a method to return the filtration close to initial
leakoff conditions (1). A linear gel step rate fluid overflush
became routine in the wells studied during the past several
years. Laboratory studies indicated that the use of linear gel or
ungelled fluid with breakers was effective in reducing the
viscosity of the crosslinked fluid to near base gel but was
found to give less than predictable time required to reduce the
viscosity. The predictability was also compounded by
uncertainty in temperature cooldown/ heat up profiles within
the fracture. It was found that the addition of a liquid pH
control additive to the step rate test fluid gave a consistent,
predictable reduction in viscosity and rapid return to apparent
initial leak-off characteristics. The liquid pH control additive
was selected because of its ease of handling, relative low cost,
and benign safety profile. It was determined, through
laboratory testing, that a pH of 6 was required to break
crosslinked fluid and return the fluid system to base gel
viscosity. The crosslinked borate gels used in this study were
generally 25 to 35 pound per thousand guar with the gel
quantity determined by well temperature, estimated leakoff
conditions and obtainable injection rate per foot of gross
fracture height(2). The pH of the crosslinked minifrac fluid
was also adjusted with buffers to obtain the optimal fluid for
the conditions. Mini-frac and step rate fluid volumes were
varied depending upon the estimated formation requirements
2 W. D. HOLCOMB, T. J. LANDRY, B. A. COMEAUX, M. J. USIE, J. E. SMITH, L. F. RIVAS
but an attempt was made to keep the volumes of the step rate
test fairly similar, and hence the volumes of the step rate
required to “contaminate” the mini-frac test fluid was fairly
consistent in this study. Table I shows representative tests
conducted to determine the concentration of the liquid pH
control additive vs buffer loading required to reduce the pH of
the contaminated mixture to pH 6. Once the contaminated
mixture reached a pH of 6 the crosslink chain was broken.
Lowering the pH to 6 also enhanced the enzymatic breaker
activity further lowering the base gel viscosity. The required
proprietary buffer loading for the crosslinked fluid was based
on initial mix water conditions and well treatment
requirements. For most of the wells in this study, the pH
control additive was loaded at 2-3 gallons per thousand
gallons of step rate fluid. Oxidative and enzymatic breakers
were also added to the fluids at normal loading for the gel
break in addition to the pH control additive. An additional
advantage of the pH control additive is that it provides the best
possible environmental conditions for the enzymatic breaker
to function.
Fifty wells were selected for this study, twenty wells which
had the linear gel step rate fluids without a pH control additive
and thirty wells with a pH control additive added to the step
rate fluid. All fifty wells were in the Western Gulf of Mexico
having bottom hole temperatures ranging from 80 to 220
degrees Fahrenheit and depth varying from 2,500 to 12,500
feet. All zones were perforated overbalanced and were treated
with screens in place via workstring. Table 2 contains a
sample of the parameters for the various wells selected.
Field Results
A total of 50 wells were examined in this study. All 50 wells
were analyzed in a consistent manner and generally the same
personnel were involved in the data analysis. Twenty wells
were selected which had very similar completion procedures
to be used as the baseline case. Thirty wells were selected for
study, which had a very similar completion procedure to the
baseline group with one significant change in procedure. The
procedural change called for modification of the step rate test
fluid. The step rate fluid was broken into two fluid segments.
The first fluid segment was the same linear gel as the baseline
wells followed by a second segment of linear gel containing
the pH control additive.
Tables 3-5 present some of the information collected for the
study and are representative of the 50 wells analyzed. Wells 1
through 8 are baseline wells that did not contain the pH
control additive in the step rate fluid and wells 9 to 20
contained the pH control additive. Table 3 shows the mini
frac and step rate treatment information for the 20
representative wells. All mini-frac fluids were guar-borate
crosslinked. The gel loading was 25-35 pounds per 1000
gallons water.
SPE 77775
Mini-fracs were injected at the anticipated fracture treatment
rate. The mini-frac was pumped first followed by the step rate
test so that the fluid leak-off characteristics could be
determined on an undisturbed reservoir. The efficiencies were
generally low. Analysis of the mini-frac and SRT were
carried out in a consistent manner, using the same technique
and generally the same personnel throughout the study period.
It is felt that this consistency of technique is important to
obtain efficiencies, which can then be used for redesign before
the fracture treatment. Bottomhole gauges, located in the wash
pipe(3), were run in all of the wells studied. Data was
retrieved after the treatment so that surface data used for
redesigns could be verified for post job analysis.
Figure 1 illustrates a frac pack treatment without the use of a
pH control additive in the step rate fluid. The general
procedure involved a minifrac and step rate test followed by a
TSO design gravel frac treatment. Analysis of the pressure
data was performed during the treatment from surface gauges.
Post treatment analysis of the pressure data was from
bottomhole gauge data. Bottomhole recovered gauges
indicated a pressure build of about 450 psi after the change in
slope in measured bottomhole pressure. This change in
bottomhole pressure slope coincident with the arrival of
propping agent is normally referred to as the beginning of the
TSO event and the pressure increase from this point to the
maximum subsequent bottomhole pressure is referred to the
net-pressure build. As depicted in figure 1, although a net
pressure increase was observed, screenout had to be
intentionally induced.
Figures 2 & 3 illustrate a mini-frac and step rate treatment
where a pH control additive was utilized in the step rate fluid.
As shown in figures 2 & 3, a significant drop in bottomhole
pressure was observed when the portion of the step rate fluid
containing the pH control additive arrived on formation. This
pressure break back signifies the destruction of the crosslinked
mini-frac fluid.
Figure 4 illustrates a frac pack treatment with the use of a pH
control additive in the step rate fluid. The general procedure
involved a minifrac and step rate test(figure 2) followed by a
TSO design gravel frac treatment. Analysis of the pressure
data was performed during the treatment from surface gauges.
Post treatment analysis of the pressure data was from
bottomhole gauge data. Bottomhole recovered gauges
indicated a net pressure build of about 780 psi. Screenout was
not intentionally induced.
Conclusions
1. A technique of adding a pH control additive into the
step-rate test fluid enhanced the reservoir ability to return
to its pre-minifrac leak-off characteristics.
2. Hard screen-outs increased in excess of 20% when a pH
control additive was utilized to assist in returning the
 NEW TECHNIQUE RESTORES INITIAL FLUID EFFICIENCY OBSERVED IN MINI-FRAC
SPE 77775 AND RESULTS IN INCREASED TSO FRAC-PACK SUCCESS 3

formation to pre-minifrac leak-off conditions prior to pumping References

TSO frac packs.
3. pH control additive provides favorable environment for
enhanced enzymatic breaker functionality.
4. The average net pressure gain for the treatments utilizing a
pH control additive technique was 60% greater than the
average net pressure gain observed in treatments not using a
pH control additive.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the management of ChevronTexaco
Corporation and BJ Services for their permission to publish
this paper. We extend our appreciation to the BJ Technical
Services laboratories for the laboratory support. We also wish
to thank the technical and operations staff from
ChevronTexaco and BJ Services for making these projects in
the GOM a success.
1) Smith, J.,Vitthal, S., McGowen, J.M., and Dusterhoff, R.:
“How Minifracs Alter Leakoff and Ways to Counteract
It,” paper SPE 58767 Presented at the 2000 SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Contol ,
Lafayette, La, February 23-24.
2) Morales,R.H., Gadiyar,B.R., Bowman,M.D., Wallace,C.
and Norman,W.D.: “Fluid Characterization for Placing an
Effective Frac/Pack”, Paper 71658 presented at 2001 SPE
Annual technical Conference , New Orleans,La,
September 30- October 3.
3) Mullen, M.E., Stewart, B.R., and Norman,W.D.:
”Evaluation of Bottom Hole Pressures in 40 Soft Rock
Frac-Pack Completions in The Gulf of Mexico”, Paper
SPE 28532 presented at the 1994 Annual Technical
Conference, New Orleans,La, September 25-28.

TABLE 1 – Representative pH Reduction For Varoius Buffer loadings With the addition of pH Control Agent.
pH Additive (10% pH Additive (25% pH Additive(50%
Buffer Buffer B pH Contamination) Contamination) Contamination)
A (gpt) - (gpt) (gpt) (gpt)
(gpt)
1 - 5.78 10 4 2
2 - 5.51 15 6 3
3 - 5.58 20 8 4
4 - 5.89 40 16 8
5 - 5.81 50 20 10
6 - 5.86 60 24 12
- 1 6.07 10 4 2
- 2 6.03 20 8 4
- 3 5.49 40 16 8
- 4 5.7 50 20 10
4 W. D. HOLCOMB, T. J. LANDRY, B. A. COMEAUX, M. J. USIE, J. E. SMITH, L. F. RIVAS SPE 77775

TABLE 2- Representative Well Information for 20 wells

Top perf Top perf Deviation Shot Perf Perf height BHT BHP Work Reservoir
Well MD TVD at perfs density dia (ft) (deg F) (psi) String od Type
Id (ft) (ft) (deg) (/ft) (in) MD TVD (in)
1 11060 9827 7 12 0.75 10 10 197 4178 2.875 gas
2 5925 5061 44 12 0.83 24 20 125 1750 2.875 gas
3 8578 8148 29 12 0.83 50 47 169 3590 2.875 oil
4 5779 4798 40 12 0.50 30 23 122 2282 3.500 gas
5 1860 1731 50 16 0.65 26 19 100 720 2.875 gas
6 11126 10067 35 12 0.75 37 29 201 4320 3.500 gas
7 12376 11344 30 12 0.50 30 22 215 3400 3.500 gas
8 9657 8993 29 12 0.83 20 17 177 3950 2.875 oil
9 11935 10754 40 16 0.75 28 19 204 4230 3.500 oil
10 11391 9954 48 12 0.70 40 34 205 3065 3.500 oil
11 10996 10640 22 12 0.75 40 37 202 3300 3.500 gas
12 11207 9471 36 12 0.70 60 48 190 4930 4.0 & 3.500 gas
13 11988 10557 52 12 1.00 24 16 202 4425 3.500 oil
14 9862 9781 7 18 0.70 50 50 195 5185 4.000 gas
15 11799 10550 28 12 0.75 74 66 219 6880 3.500 oil
16 11734 10023 62 12 0.75 45 24 204 3110 3.500 oil
17 11052 10453 25 12 0.75 15 13 190 4075 3.500 gas
18 11588 10356 59 12 0.75 30 17 196 4060 3.500 gas
19 7912 6582 41 12 0.75 50 38 154 3010 3.500 gas
20 9741 8622 2 12 0.70 26 26 189 2275 3.5 & 2.875 oil

TABLE 3- Representative Mini Frac and Step Rate Test Information for 20 wells

Mini-Frac Step rate test

PH add.
Well Fluid 2 Conc Ext Ext
Fluid Volume Rate Effcy ISIP F. G. Fluid Volume
Id Volume (gal/ Press Rate
(gal) (BPM) % (psi) psi/ft (gal)
(gal) 1000) (psi) (BPM)
1 30 # borate 2020 8 6 6555 0.67 30 # linear 3030 0 - 6730 1
2 25 # borate 3530 12 5 3150 0.62 25 # linear 3450 0 - 3150 1
3 35 # borate 17520 18 1.5 6150 0.76 35 # linear 6260 0 - 5875 2
4 25 # borate 1690 8 7 3960 0.82 25 # linear 2530 0 - 4100 2.5
5 25 # borate 3030 10 6 1010 0.54 25 # linear 2440 0 - 950 3
6 35 # borate 3530 12 3 7380 0.73 35 # linear 4710 0 - 7361 2
7 35 # borate 4000 12 29 7010 0.62 35 # linear 3790 0 - 7000 3
8 30 # borate 6010 12 2 7080 0.79 30 # linear 5050 0 - 6800 4
9 35 # borate 11010 15 1.5 7050 0.65 35 # linear 640 4000 3 6900 4
10 30 # borate 6010 15 5 6206 0.62 30 # linear 1510 5200 3 6125 3
11 30 # borate 3530 12 16 6540 0.61 25 # linear 640 3900 2 6150 2
12 30 # borate 7990 10 7 7880 0.83 30 # linear 640 5800 3 7850 3
13 30 # borate 5050 12 3 7299 0.69 30 # linear 1010 5040 2 7215 3
14 30 # borate 11010 15 5 7310 0.75 30 # linear 640 5800 3 7473 3
15 30 # borate 7990 12 6 8283 0.79 30 # linear 760 4040 2 8291 2
16 30 # borate 6010 15 5 6580 0.66 30 # linear 760 3700 3 6267 3
17 25 # borate 2530 10 4 6945 0.66 25 # linear 640 2750 2 6975 3
18 30 # borate 5000 12 1 7600 0.73 30 # linear 760 3100 3 7389 4
19 30 # borate 6000 15 2 4550 0.69 30 # linear 761 5040 3 4610 3
20 30 # borate 9000 12 2 5300 0.61 30 # linear 635 2150 2 5130 2
 NEW TECHNIQUE RESTORES INITIAL FLUID EFFICIENCY OBSERVED IN MINI-FRAC
SPE 77775 AND RESULTS IN INCREASED TSO FRAC-PACK SUCCESS 5

TABLE 4- Representative Fracture Treatment Information for 20 wells

Fracture Treatment Design PumpedP Behind Blank Revsd # prop/ft

Well Prop
Id Type Prop rop Pipe & ann Out TVD MD
Fluid Volume Rate
(lbm) (lbm) (lbm) (lbm) (lbm) #/ft #/ft
(gal) BPM
1 30 # borate 4184 8 20/40 EP 8450 8000 7085 175 740 709 709
2 25 # borate 11200 12 20/40 EP 28500 30350 27865 468 2017 1393 1161
3 35 # borate 18800 18 20/40 EP 39000 39000 37120 1120 760 790 742
4 25 # borate 2275 8 20/40 EP 10000 10000 5300 450 4250 230 177
5 25 # borate 17700 10 20/40 EP 49800 49800 45100 4400 300 2374 1735
6 35 # borate 10200 12 20/40 EP 29300 29300 27100 1550 650 934 732
7 35 # borate 13100 10 20/40 EP 55000 59000 58500 250 250 2659 1950
8 30 # borate 10700 12 20/40 EP 19200 19300 16350 1200 1750 962 818
9 35 # borate 29300 18 20/40 EP 31600 35410 24300 2000 9110 1279 868
10 30 # borate 15300 15 20/40 EP 29600 31100 20100 3100 7900 591 503
11 30 # borate 5130 12 20/40 EP 23450 25750 14550 1400 9800 393 364
12 30 # borate 18700 10 20/40 EP 34150 38700 28500 1800 8400 594 475
13 30 # borate 11075 12 20/40 EP 22950 26400 24200 1200 1000 1513 1008
14 30 # borate 13950 15 20/40 EP 34900 37700 14650 1200 21850 293 293
15 30 # borate 21500 12 20/40 EP 45775 48835 45100 2825 910 683 609
16 30 # borate 13570 15 20/40 EP 32575 36100 21200 1600 13300 883 471
17 25 # borate 2540 10 20/40 EP 9600 9500 6300 750 2450 485 420
18 30 # borate 20200 18 20/40 EP 28900 33000 6400 1150 25450 376 213
19 30 # borate 15700 12 20/40 EP 24400 24400 20650 2450 1300 543 413
20 30 # borate 15700 12 20/40 EP 28900 28900 15100 450 13350 581 581

TABLE 5- Representative Fracture Treatment Information for 20 wells

Max Prop @ BHTP slope Rate at Induced Net Pressure

Well Hard Surface Perforations change with EOJ Screen Out Increase
Id Screen out ? (psa) prop hit ? (BPM) ? (psi)
1 No 8 Yes None Attempted 2400
2 Yes 10 Yes 1 Yes 460
3 No 12 Changed None Attempted 170
Slope
4 Yes 9 Yes 8 No 180
5 No 12 Slight None Attempted 120
6 No 12 Yes 1 Yes 360
7 No 12 Yes None Attempted 390
8 Yes 10 Yes 3 Yes 380
9 Yes 12 Yes 16 No 1400
10 Yes 12 Yes 5 Yes 505
11 Yes 12 Began early 5 Yes 620
12 Yes 10 Yes 7.5 No – Pressure out 880
13 Yes 12 Yes 1 Yes 580
14 Yes 10 Yes 15 No 1300
15 No 11 Yes None Attempted 550
16 Yes 12 Slight drop None No - Pressure out 750
then increase
17 Yes 10 Yes 4 No – Pressure out 1048
18 Yes 7 Yes 12 No – Pressure out 1830
19 Yes 10 Yes 2 Yes 370
20 Yes 10 Yes 12 No 480
6 W. D. HOLCOMB, T. J. LANDRY, B. A. COMEAUX, M. J. USIE, J. E. SMITH, L. F. RIVAS SPE 77775

Fig. 1 –- Typical frac-pack treatment with average 400-500 psi TSO net pressure increase.
6000 30

SRT Fluid 2
on formation
5000 25
BH Gauge or ST Pressure (psi)

Bottomhole Pressure

4000 20

Rate (BPM)
3000 15

Surface Pressure
2000 10

Rate

1000 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time (minutes)

Fig. 2 -- Mini-Frac and SRT test showing extreme pressure change when SRT fluid 2 arrives on formation.
 NEW TECHNIQUE RESTORES INITIAL FLUID EFFICIENCY OBSERVED IN MINI-FRAC
SPE 77775 AND RESULTS IN INCREASED TSO FRAC-PACK SUCCESS 7

7000

Bottomhole Pressure 25
6000

SRT Fluid 2
BH Gauge or ST Pressure (psi)

5000 on formation 20

Rate (BPM)
4000
Surface Pressure 15

3000

10

2000

Rate
5
1000

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (minutes)

Fig. 3 -- Step rate fluid 2 hits formation and a significant drop in bottomhole pressure was noted. Note also pressure
decline after SRT was more rapid.

6000 30
Bottomhole Pressure

5000 25
BH Gauge or ST Pressure (psi)

Rate (BPM) or Prop conc (ppa)

Surface Pressure
4000 20

Rate
3000 15
Bottomhole ppa

2000 10
Surface ppa

1000 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (minutes)

Fig. 4 -- Fracture Treatment of the mini frac / SRT in Figure 2. Note that bottomhole pressure recovered to near 4800 psi
as seen in the original mini frac in Figure 2.