SPE 163902

Evolution of a Pinpoint Stimulation Technology and the Benefits Thereafter

J. Hartley, SPE, and D. Holden, SPE, Halliburton

Copyright 2013, 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, 26–27 March 2013.

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 necessarily 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 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The buildup of the energy services industry in recent years has led to an unprecedented amount of hydraulic horsepower
(HHP) available to energy producing organizations. This, combined with the decline of natural gas prices in North America
during recent months, has made the energy services market (specifically, pressure pumping) more competitive than ever.
Energy services companies must not only provide HHP, but also innovative, efficient solutions and technologies to satisfy the
energy producers’ hydraulic fracturing needs. Pinpoint stimulation that uses hydrajet perforating is one such technology that
provides both innovation and efficiency.
Historically, setting proppant plugs for interval isolation in horizontal/deviated wells by means of traditional techniques
has proven to be challenging for various reasons. As energy producers began drilling more of these types of wells, they
created a need for a reliable proppant plug setting technique for multi-interval Pinpoint stimulation operations. The traditional
method of setting a proppant plug is by simply reducing the downhole pump rate and increasing the proppant concentration,
thereby inducing a near wellbore (NWB) screenout. By starting with a proven Pinpoint stimulation solution and adding a new
coiled tubing (CT) deployed bottomhole assembly (BHA), Pinpoint stimulation process efficiencies were increased in many
ways, proppant plug setting being just one.
The new BHA enables the proppant plug to be set while hydrajet perforating the next interval, minimizing the time and
materials required. It also assists in anchoring and centralizing the hydrajetting tool during perforating operations to help
ensure that the jets remain on target with the proper standoff distance. These new developments, as well as those included in
the operational procedures for using this new BHA, elevate fracturing treatment efficiencies to a new level.
This paper presents the development of the new BHA from its inception to its current form, including information on its
operation. It also details how the new BHA can provide North American energy producers with the process efficiencies they
are seeking, and how this BHA can assist energy producers in other areas of the world that are underserved in the area of
HHP reach their goals.

Introduction
The Greek philosopher Plato is often credited for the statement “Necessity… the mother of invention.” The precursor of CT
was developed from necessity during the Second World War. Although the adaptation of this new “coiled pipe” to the oil
field would not begin for several years, CT is now an indispensable method for conveying and facilitating many basic oilfield
services.
Hydrajet perforating (Fig. 1) began being used in the oil field in the 1950s (Brown and Loper 1961) and, while then only
a novelty, has since grown to be a valued service. Today, production and service companies alike employ hydrajet perforating
for not only creating perforations but for cutting slots, releasing stuck casing or drillpipe, and even helping extinguish oil well
blowouts. Eventually, the use of CT and hydrajetting were combined with the hydrajet perforating and annular CT (HP-ACT)
fracturing method.
2 SPE 163902

Fig. 1—Hydrajetted perforation.

HP-ACT Method
HP-ACT fracturing has been used in producing fields throughout the world for many years. Thousands of wells have been
successfully fractured and propagated, augmenting the production of oil and gas on six continents. This method combines
small-OD CT with the hydrajet perforating technique to cut perforations through casing, cement, and formation material (Fig.
2). The subsequent fracturing treatment can begin immediately after the perforations are created because the CT can remain
in the well during the treatment. A high pound-per-gallon (lbm/gal) proppant plug is pumped at the tail of the last proppant-
laden fluid stage at the end of the treatment. When this proppant plug reaches the perforations, a NWB screenout occurs,
providing diversion for the next treatment interval. Once the proppant plug is placed and pressure-tested, treatment of the
next interval can begin immediately. The rapid succession of fracturing treatments without delay can lead to high well
completion efficiencies and low overall completion costs.

Fig. 2—HP-ACT; hydrajet perforating and proppant plug diversion using small-OD CT.

Table 1 (Lindsay et al. 2012) shows the efficiency and completion time of this method compared to “plug-n-perf”, sliding
sleeve, and various other pinpoint stimulation techniques. It is important to note that the total completion time listed in the
table does not include any contingency time for time-table/monetary risks, such as premature screenouts, leaking sleeves, or
plug/gun miss runs.
SPE 163902 3

TABLE 1—EFFICIENCY AND COMPLETIONTIME COMPARISON

Fracturing Efficiency, Total Completion
Method Perforating Diversion lbm proppant/hr Time, hr
Plug-n-perf Select-fire Composite plug 0.99 122.37
Sliding Sleeves Sliding Sleeves Ball and baffle 3.74 13.37
a
CTSP Conventional Straddle packer 2.69 69.75
HP-ACT Hydrajetting Packer or proppant plug 1.77 68.62
b
HP-DM Hydrajetting Proppant plug 1.65 68.62
a
Coil tubing deployed straddle packer.
b
Hydrajet perforating and downhole mixing.

Pinpoint stimulation techniques that use hydrajetting, such as HP-ACT, offer several contingency advantages compared to
traditional fracturing methods. Often, when a premature screenout occurs with plug-n-perf or sliding sleeves, one of the first
calls made is to the local CT unit. HP-ACT offers the advantage of already having CT on the well location—already in the
well, in fact. If a premature screenout occurs during this pinpoint treatment application, the proppant remaining in the
annulus can easily be circulated out of the wellbore, allowing treatment to resume at the next interval.
However, because HP-ACT necessitates setting a proppant plug for diversion at the end of the fracturing treatment, extra
proppant and fluid must be allotted. This increases the overall completion cost to the producer. At times, isolating the most
recently treated perforations can be difficult. Also, difficulty can be encountered when trying to place the proppant plug over
a depleted layer or in a deviated/horizontal wellbore. The contingency for this problem is attempting to place a second
proppant plug using various techniques to aid the NWB screenout. These contingency operations decrease the time-
table/monetary efficiency of the process.
With the increased horizontal drilling activity in North America and increased competition between service companies, a
novel solution was needed that would provide the well operator with an increased process efficiency by reducing the
contingency time needed for secondary and tertiary proppant plugs, but also differentiate itself from the competition. Aided
by new technology and a fresh look at the process, a plan was developed to bring the HP-ACT method to elevated levels of
efficiency. Eventually, a new process was created that would completely eliminate the excess proppant, fluid, and time
necessary to provide diversion at the end of a HP-ACT treatment.

Anchored Hydrajet Perforating and Annular CT (AHP-ACT) Fracturing Method

AHP-ACT History
The history of the AHP-ACT method is brief in comparison to many other conventional completion methods. In total, the
method has been in use for less than four years. Since its inception, AHP-ACT has been employed extensively throughout
North America and is now being used in the world’s deserts and jungles.

Generation I. The first generation AHP-ACT BHA was far different from the BHA used today. It was based on an
inflatable packer. Special chokes were designed in an attempt to generate backpressure without increasing the existing
velocity of the fluid. These chokes could be stacked in different orientations to vary the flow reduction and match various
well conditions.
Field trials for the generation I AHP-ACT BHA were held in August 2009 in Canada. While the generation I BHA
experienced some limited initial success, it was apparent after completion of the field trials that revisions to the current
design were necessary. The severe-duty inflatable packer was not durable enough for the punishing fracturing application.
Also, the special chokes did not prove to be as durable as expected, as well as being difficult and expensive to manufacture.
These revisions inspired a major overhaul of the BHA, eventually leading to the generation II design.

Generation II. The generation II AHP-ACT BHA was a complete departure from generation I. Rather than use an
inflatable packer to create the anchoring action, the generation II design was based largely on a field-proven retrievable
mechanism. By basing the new BHA on a previously established design, much performance uncertainty was immediately
eliminated. However, because the generation II BHA was based on a retrievable BHA, the complexity and number of moving
parts increased by a substantial margin.
Initial field trials for the generation II AHP-ACT commenced in February 2010 in Canada. The design and operating
procedures of the generation II AHP-ACT BHA were further refined and led to many successful jobs throughout North
America. In 2010, just fewer than 100 fracturing treatments were successfully completed. Because of increasing industry
acceptance and BHA reliability, in the first six months of 2011 alone over 130 successful treatments were completed.
After finding the specialized chokes of generation I inadequate and expensive, a simple choke was installed in the upper
portion of the AHP-ACT BHA to restrict flow out of the bottom of the BHA during hydrajetting. The choke was installed in
a small shuttle device that was allowed to move in relation to the flow direction. However, it was obvious that a more
complex design was necessary to help ensure adequate reverse circulation capacity.
4 SPE 163902

Unfortunately, there were inherent flaws with the generation II design. During the hydrajetting process, the choke had to
be considered and therefore flow rates had to be increased to create the proper jetting differential. Another consideration was
that, to reverse circulate, the shuttle assembly had to be pulled up to expose the circulation ports using the CT. If the CT was
stuck above the circulation ports, reverse circulation became impossible.

AHP-ACT Evolution

Generation III. The generation III AHP-ACT BHA (Fig. 3) was conceived in early 2011. It was designed to take
advantage of all the generation II components that had proven reliable while using new technology to replace all of the
components that had not. The main areas of improvement over the generation II BHA revolved around the shuttle assembly
and circulation ports.
To replace the shuttle assembly, a newly created system was developed and placed at a lower position in the BHA. This
assembly created the backpressure above the AHP-ACT that facilitates the annular fracturing treatment. This assembly
contains no moving parts and no dynamic seals. Field trials have shown the assembly can withstand job proppant totals well
over 1,000,000 lbm before service is required.

Fig. 3—AHP-ACT method; placing proppant plugs while hydrajetting, using small-OD CT.

To address the lack of reverse circulation flow area, the circulation ports were placed higher in the BHA. This allows full
flow reverse circulation when required without the need to manipulate the CT. By introducing the simplified pressure
building assembly and the stationary circulation ports, reliability was increased and complexity was driven down compared
to the generation II design. For example, the number of moving parts was reduced by 21% from generation II to generation
III (Fig. 4). Also, the need for dynamic seals was completely eliminated.

Fig. 4—Comparison of total parts, moving and static, for generation II vs. III.

Another advantage of the generation III AHP-ACT BHA is the reduced overall tool assembly length (Fig. 5). This
reduction in length provides a reduced overhead load and lower working heights. The combination of reduced overhead load
and lower working heights allows the use of smaller lifting equipment. By reducing the length of the assembly, cost savings
can be realized for the customer, in most cases, by eliminating the need for a third-party crane rental.
SPE 163902 5

Fig. 5—AHP-ACT assembly total length for generation II vs. III.

To better serve the end user, the generation III AHP-ACT was designed with application flexibility and field
serviceability in mind. These features allow the new BHA to be operated in a wide variety of wellbore geometries and
conditions. A wide operating envelope helps ensure that most common treatment requirements can be met. Most BHAs can
be easily serviced in the field by a single tool specialist. All generation III AHP-ACT BHAs have undergone extensive
testing to help ensure reliable operation at all times.

AHP-ACT Process
The AHP-ACT BHA is easily deployed using CT as small as 1.75 in. in diameter. No special well control equipment is
required to successfully execute the fracturing treatment. After the necessary operational procedures are checked on surface,
the BHA is run in hole (RIH) to the specified hydrajetting depth. If desired, a mechanical casing collar locator (MCCL) can
be incorporated into the BHA for depth-correlation purposes. To increase the efficiency of the hydrajet perforating process,
the anchoring portion of the BHA anchors to the production casing, keeping the hydrajetting sub stationary. Once the BHA is
in place, a pressure test is conducted to confirm proper operation. During the hydrajetting process (Fig. 6), proppant exits the
hydrajetting sub, interacts with the wellbore, re-enters the BHA, and then exits out the bottom. This process allows the same
proppant and fluid to be reused to place the proper diversionary plug on the perforations most recently treated.
6 SPE 163902

Fig. 6—Hydrajet perforating process.

Once jetting is complete, the perforations can be broken down immediately without any delay. The BHA remains
anchored to the production casing throughout the fracturing treatment. Once the treatment is complete, the BHA is pulled out
of hole (POOH) to the next treatment interval. Once correlation is complete and the BHA is on depth, the anchoring portion
is again anchored to the production casing. The process step, such as shown in Fig. 7, is repeated until all treatment intervals
have been stimulated (Fig. 8). After the stimulation treatment stages are all completed, the BHA is POOH to surface and
rigged down. Then, the well operator has the choice of RIH with a wash nozzle or, very often, bringing the well on
immediately.
SPE 163902 7

Fig. 7—Single-stage treatment summary example.

AHP-ACT Efficiency
This process provides a great deal of efficiency over the original HP-ACT because the proppant, fluid, and time associated
with setting traditional proppant plugs is no longer necessary. As seen in Fig. 8, the unique AHP-ACT process allows for
extremely high time efficiency, especially when paired with 24-hr operational stimulation crews.

Fig. 8—AHP-ACT multiple-stage job summary.

8 SPE 163902

A good example of the built-in premature screenout contingency of the AHP-ACT method is shown in Fig. 9. A
premature screenout occurred during flushing of the main treatment. The crew was able to successfully circulate
approximately 19,000 lbm of proppant out of the wellbore. This operation caused minimal delay compared to the delays
encountered with screenout in traditional stimulation methods, such as plug-n-perf or sliding sleeves.

Fig. 9—Wellbore was circulated clean after screenout.

Table 2 (Lindsay et al. 2012) provides a comparison between two of the leading conventional fracturing methods and
three leading pinpoint stimulation methods. Again, it is important to note that the data for the two conventional fracturing
methods does not include time for contingencies for premature screenouts, early plug sets, limited perforation/sleeve entry, or
leaking sliding sleeves. The data represents 30 total intervals of the same total fluid and proppant volumes.

TABLE 2—COMPARISON BASED ON THE SAME NUMBER OF STAGES

Plug-and- Sliding
Fracturing method
Perf Sleeves CTSP HP-ACT AHP-ACT
Total intervals 30 30 30 30 30
Perforating time/stage and/or
4 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.5
move BHA time, hr
Total perf/move time, hr 40 3 7.5 15 15

No. of intervals/stage 3 1 1 1 1

Treatment rate, bbl/min 60 60 10 20 20

Total fluid volume, gal 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

Total proppant volume, Ibm 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

Total pumping time, hr 10.37 10.37 62.25 31.12 31.12

Hydraulic horsepower, HHP 30,000 30,000 8,000 14,000 15,000

Total frac method time, hr 50.37 13.37 69.75 60.62 46.12

Final wellbore cleanout time, hr 72 0 0 8 0

SPE 163902 9

In North America today, there is no shortage of HHP. However, there are areas in the world in which HHP is at a
premium. An example of efficient use of HHP can be seen in Fig. 10. These statistics are from a series of treatments
completed on a single well in an extremely remote area using less than 10,000 HHP. The annular treatment rate was 20
bbl/min and the average treatment size was approximately 60,000 lbm of proppant and 44,000 gal of fluid.

Fig. 10—Average time per treatment segment.

Conclusion
Instead of retiring a process or BHA because of limitations, improvements were made to a proven process and BHA. The
AHP-ACT method now offers a solution to current and emerging markets in both oil and gas plays. The AHP-ACT method is
applicable to both horizontal and vertical well completions.
The AHP-ACT method offers many benefits, including the following:
 Reduced HHP required on location.
 More stages per every 24 hr on location.
 Each fracturing treatment can be customized for optimum results.
 Minimization of fracturing process risk and contingency cost.
 Improved hydrajetting performance by centralizing and preventing the tool from moving.
 Eliminated the time required to set proppant plugs for previous interval isolation.
 Eliminated extra proppant required for previous interval isolation.
 Increased reverse circulation capabilities.
 No limitations on number of stages per well treatment.

References
Brown, R.W. and Loper, J.L. 1961. Theory of Formation Cutting Using the Sand Erosion Process. J. Pet. Tech. 13 (5): 483–488. doi:
10.2118/1572-G.
Lindsay, S., Ables, C., and Holden, D. 2012. Re-Innovating Old Technology Improves Efficiency of Proven Coiled-Tubing Stimulation.
Paper SPE 158373 presented at the SPETT 2012 Energy Conference and Exhibition, Port of Spain, Trinidad, 11–13 June. doi:
10.2118/158373-MS.