IPTC 16525

The Approach of CT-Dragged Hydrajet Perforating and Annular-Delivery

Sand Fracturing Applies in Horizontal Wells
Liu Yuxi, Yue Xianggang, Zhang Guoliang, Yu Long, Lan Chengyu, Liu Peng, Luo Minghui, Zheng Shanjun, Xia
hong, Li Liguo, Liu Xianlong, Chi Yunping, Liu Yuebao, You Shifa, Ma Jibao, Zhou Tingting, Downhole Service
Company of Daqing oilfield Co.,Ltd. Liu Wei, Daqing Oilfield Construction and Designing Institute, Wu Xinyou,
Debt Department of CNPC

Copyright 2013, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Beijing, China, 26–28 March 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme 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 International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference 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, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435

Abstract
Multi stage fracturing of horizontal wells is quickly creating the same ‘step change’ as when vertical wells first went
horizontal (Rob Hari, 2010). Following the implementation of multistage fractured horizontal well, the operation scale
enhances unceasingly.
The new technique need to be complied with some characteristics, such as high fluid delivery capacity, large fluid amount
per well and uninterrupted multi-stage execution. But small open area and big friction drag of tubing or CT become the vital
constraint in increasing displacement.
This paper will show the new approach of CT-dragged hydrajet perforating and annular-delivery sand fracturing applying
in horizontal wells, and discuss technical measures for estimating and optimizing some construction parameters in two stages
of the approach, finally describe two targeted operations.

Introduction
The application of horizontal completions in low- to very low-permeability formations is continuting to proliferate on a global
scale (J.B. Surjaatmadja et al, 2006).
But conventional horizontal multistage fracturing is limited in the number of stages by the step change size of each
stage’s activation ball. The plug-and-perforate method is negatively affected by occasional ‘soft set’ of composite plugs on
excess proppant in the wellbore and the time to drill out the plugs with coiled tubing prior to placing the well on to
production(Juan Carlos Castaneda et al, 2010).
The approach of CT-dragged hydrajet perforating and annular-delivery sand fracturing applies in Horizontal Wells
combines with some advantages, CT-dragged hydrajet perforating by cluster, low surface pressure and high flow rate by
annular delivery, multi-stage fracturing by expanded packer isolating.
In the real cases, it achieves success on horizontal well completion and stimulation in low and ultra-low permeability
reservoirs.

Single Trip BHA and Working Principle

As shown in figure 1, the complete BHA includes the coiled tubing safety joint, centralizer, perforator, expansion packer,
hydraulic anchor, check valve, sieve and guide. According to actual circumstances, perforator could carry one to 6 jet nozzles
or more, according to actual circumstances.
After accomplishing CT depth correction, CT is run in the hole and positioned at the objective interval. Then sand is
pumped down CT through jet nozzles to perforate at a predetermined flow rate and sand loading. After finishing perforating,
overflush fluid should be pumped down every time. And perforating by cluster could be done from running in or pulling out
CT repeatedly.
After accomplishing desired perforation, sand is pumped down the annular between casing and CT to fracture.
Meanwhile a fluid pump supplies CT with a predetermined flow rate of clean fluid that keeps the differential pressure of CT
and casing, so as to keep expansion packer setting and hydraulic anchor working.
After accomplishing scheduled fracture, reverse washing could unset expansion packer and retrieve hydraulic anchor
2 IPTC 16525

slips. Then pull out CT to next objective interval, repeat the above steps for multistage fracturing.

Figure 1 Above – Single Trip BHA

Process Estimating and Optimizing

Perforating Stage.
In hydrajet perforating stage, surface blowpipe is set to open. Perforating fluid is pump down CT, then is blowout from jet
nozzles, and part of it is ejected into the formation, the other part of it returns to surface along the annular of casing and CT.
Equation 1 is hydrajet perforating CT flow rate equation.
2
D
Q  60v j    n （1）
2
Where：Q is the CT flow rate in m3/min, vj is the perforating velocity from jet nozzles in m/s, D is the diameter of jet
nozzles in m, n is the number of jet nozzles, usually range from 3 to 6.
From table 1, we could calculate that CT perforating flow rate needs to stay above 2 m3/min, usually in the case of 6
nozzles and the diameter of 6 mm.

Table 1. Hydrajet Perforating CT Flow Rate

3
Q(m /min) 0.71 0.94 1.18 1.41 0.85 1.14 1.42 1.71 1.02 1.36 1.70 2.03
vj (m/s) 200
D(mm) 5 5.5 6
n 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6

Mini fracture has been done in well A. 2 manometers have been assembled on both sides of expansion packer. The total
length of 2 3/8" CT is 3350m. Then table 2 is presented the measured data, and according to the data, the calculated CT
friction curve is shown on Fig. 2.

Table 2. Mini Fracture in Well A

CT Casing CT Casing Choke Friction
Q Surface Surface Manometers Manometers Pressure of TVD Ph
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Loss CT
3
m /min MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa m MPa
0.8 14.6 0.3 16.27 13.64 2.63 11.85 1325 13.5
1 18.2 0.4 17.48 13.84 3.64 14.24 1325 13.5
1.2 23.9 0.5 19.11 14.2 4.91 18.31 1325 13.5
1.4 35.4 0.7 23.25 14.89 8.36 25.67 1325 13.5
1.6 41.2 0.8 25.28 15.4 9.88 29.44 1325 13.5
1.8 48.9 1.1 28.1 15.69 12.4 34.32 1325 13.5
2 53.4 1.2 29.69 16.05 13.6 37.23 1325 13.5
IPTC 16525 3

Figure 2 Above – Predication Curve of CT Friction, Predicated(red) vs Actual(blue)

Equation 2 is predicated surface CT pressure equation.

Ptubing  Pb  Pftubing  Pfannulus  Ph （2）
Where: Ptubing is predicated surface CT pressure in MPa, Pb is Choke Pressure Loss in MPa, Pftubing is friction of CT in
MPa, Pfannulus is friction of annular in MPa, Ph is fluid column pressure in MPa.

Table 3. Predication of Surface CT Pressure

Q Choke Pressure Loss Friction of CT Friction of Annular CT Surface Pressure
3
（m /min) (MPa) （MPa） （MPa） （MPa）
0.8 2.76 11.85 0.40 15.01
1 4.12 15.63 0.60 20.35
1.6 9.64 28.70 1.35 39.69
1.8 11.98 33.63 1.67 47.28
2 14.56 38.85 2.01 55.42
2.4 20.45 50.17 2.79 73.41
2.8 27.32 62.64 3.69 93.65
3 31.12 69.31 4.2 104.63

Fracturting Stage.
Equation 3 is predicated surface annular pressure equation.
Pannulus  Pfac  Pfannulus  Ph （3）
Where: Pannular is predicated surface annular pressure in MPa, Pb is Choke Pressure Loss in MPa, Pftubing is friction of CT in
MPa, Pfannulus is friction of annular in MPa, Ph is fluid column pressure in MPa.
From equation 3, we could predicate that surface annular pressure in fracture stage, the detail is shown on Fig. 3. The
depth of annular is predicated to 2000 m.

Figure 3 Above – Predication Curve of Annular Friction, Predicated(red) vs Actual(blue)

4 IPTC 16525

Table 4. Predication of Surface Annular Pressure

Q FMP Friction of Annular Annular Surface Pressure

3
(m /min) (MPa) (MPa) （MPa）

1 35 1.3332 22.81361

3 35 4.3724 25.85281

5 35 7.9412 29.42161

7 35 12.0396 33.52001

9 35 16.6676 38.14801

11 35 21.8252 43.30561

13 35 27.5124 48.99281

15 35 33.7292 55.20961

Considering the incompressible fluid, choke pressure loss is formed when the liquid passes from ID 51.4 mm CT to 6 X
ID 5~6mm jet nozzles. Establish Bernoulli equation at two different diameter sections before and after the reducing. Equation
4 is approximate choke pressure loss equation, and according to the equation, we calculate the choke pressure loss caused by
different flow rate in Figure 4.
8 Q 2  1 1 
p  p1  p2  k    （4）
 2  D2 4 D14 
Where: △P is the choke pressure loss in MPa, ρ is the fluid density in kg/m3, Q is the flow rate of CT in m3/min, D1 and
D2 is two different diameters of section in m, k is the coefficient of local resistance.
According to specific construction condition, we can choose the suitable CT flow rate, ensure the choke pressure loss can
make the expansion packer and hydraulic anchor work.

Figure 4 Above – the Choke Pressure Loss by CT Flow Rate

Description and Application of Equipment

A perfect construction is the utilization of standard field fracturing units, CT unit and manifolds. Equipment utilized for the
well operation included:
 Standard fracturing units
 2 3/8" CT unit
 Specialized BHA system
 CT frac manifold
 Choke manifold
IPTC 16525 5

 Kill manifold
 Annular frac manifold
 Frac head
 CT BOP unit
 BOP and flow cross
 105MPa pipes
Illustrated details are found in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Above – BOP, Tree and Manifold Connections Stack

Case Histories
In well A operation, we put 2 manometers to upper and lower sides of expansion packer in BHA, so as to record CT inner
pressure and annular pressure at the bottom of hole that are represented in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Table 5. Job Parameters – Well A 9 Frac Stages

Formation: Sandstone Coiled Tubing: 2 3/8" 3350m Max Pump Rate, 3
2.0m /min
CT Perforating:
BHST: 57℃ Trips: 2 Ave Pump Rate, 3
1.8m /min
CT Hydraulic Fracturing:
BHSP: 34.7MPa Perforating clusters: 14 Max Pump Rate, 3
5.9m /min
Annular Hydraulic Fracturing:
PBTD: 2140m Fracture stages: 9 Max Pressure,
56MPa
CT Perforating:
TVD: 1324m Total time for treatment: 22 h Ave Pressure,
47MPa
CT Hydraulic Fracturing:
3
Length of 690m Total Sand Volume: 313 m Max Pressure,
32MPa
Horizontal: Annular Hydraulic Fracturing:
3
Casing: 5 1/2" Total Fluid Volume: 4274 m

We can conclude from Figure 6 and Figure 7 that the differential pressure between CT and casing kept upon 10MPa, so
as to make expansion packer setting. Then the differential pressure between the upper and the lower sides of expansion pakcer
exist, and both have no linkage, so the expansion packer does work well.
6 IPTC 16525

Flow Rate (m3/min) Density (kg/m3)

2.500 Pressure for CT (MPa) Density (kg/m3) 700.0 Pressure for Annular (MPa) Flow Rate (m3/min)
400.0 10.00
50.00 50.00

2.000 560.0 8.00

320.0 40.00
40.00

1.500 420.0
240.0 30.00 6.00
30.00

1.000 280.0
160.0 20.00 4.00
20.00

0.500 140.0
80.0 2.00
10.00 10.00

0.000 0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0.00 0.0 140.0 280.0 420.0 560.0 700.0
Ê Ê

Figure 6 Above – Left side shows Well A CT Perforating and Pump Curve – 9 stages, right side shows Well A Annular Fracturing
Curve – 9 stages
Annular Pressure up Anchor (MPa) CT Pressure up Anchor (MPa) Annular Pressure up Anchor (MPa) CT Pressure up Anchor (MPa)
Annular Pressure under Anchor (MPa) CT Pressure under Anchor (MPa) 60.00 Annular Pressure under Anchor (MPa) CT Pressure under Anchor (MPa) 60.00
60.00 60.00
60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00

48.00 48.00 48.00 48.00

48.00 48.00 48.00 48.00

36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00

36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00

24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00

24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00

12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00

12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 650.0 696.0 742.0 788.0 834.0 880.0 0.00
0.0 45.0 90.0 135.0 180.0 225.0
Ê Ê ¼ä ( i )

Figure 7 Above – Left side shows Well A Manometer curve of mini frac and 5 stages, right side shows Well A Manometer curve of 4
stages

Figure 8 Above – Well A Tree and CT unit

In well B operation, anti-fraying material nozzle was put in use, which single nozzle can afford 26235lbs proppant. And
fracturing flow rate could be 1.5 - 3 times than the conventional hydraulic fracturing, and the surface fracturing pressure could
be 15 – 25MPa less than the conventional. As well, the operating interval between two zones is within an hour, and the
efficiency raise 6 times than the bridge plug fracturing.

Table 6. Job Parameters – Well B 9 Frac Stages

IPTC 16525 7

Formation: Sandstone Coiled Tubing: 2 3/8" 3350m Max Pump Rate, 3

2.0m /min
CT Perforating:
BHST: 59℃ Trips: 2 Ave Pump Rate, 3
1.5m /min
CT Hydraulic Fracturing:
BHSP: 35.5MPa Perforating clusters: 21 Max Pump Rate, 3
6m /min
Annular Hydraulic Fracturing:
PBTD: 2430m Fracture stages: 9 Max Pressure,
44MPa
CT Perforating:
TVD: 1426m Total time for treatment: 26 h Ave Pressure,
40MPa
CT Hydraulic Fracturing:
3
Length of 602m Total Sand Volume: 234.5 m Max Pressure,
28MPa
Horizontal: Annular Hydraulic Fracturing:
3
Casing: 5 1/2" Total Fluid Volume: 4100m

Figure 9 Above – Left side shows Well B Tree and Frec Head, right side shows fracturing units

Cas pressure Mpa Blen dis rate 2 m^3/min

Chem 3 rate L/min Cal density kg/m^3
0.100 Blen dis rate 1 m^3/min Mea density 1 kg/m^3 390.0
57.00 Frac max pressure Mpa Tub pressure Mpa 15.00
0.100 1300
8.600 680.0
57.00 68.00

0.080 312.0
45.60 12.00
0.080 1040
6.880 544.0
45.60 54.40

0.060 234.0
34.20 9.00
0.060 780
5.160 408.0
34.20 40.80

0.040 156.0
22.80 6.00
0.040 520
3.440 272.0
22.80 27.20

0.020 78.0
11.40 3.00
0.020 260
1.720 136.0
11.40 13.60

0.000 0.0
0.00 0.00
0.000 0
0.000 0.0 48.0 96.0 144.0 192.0 240.0 0.0
0 00 Ê 0 00
Figure 10 Above – Well B Perforating and Fracturing Curve -9 stages

Summary
As this is a new technique, care is being taken in technical measures for estimating and optimizing some construction
8 IPTC 16525

parameters.
 In perforating stage, perforating velocity from jet nozzles must keep upon 200m/s, the CT flow rate needs to stay
upon 2m3/min and CT surface pressure needs to stay upon 55MPa, according to the actual situation. As well, the 2
3/8" CT of Internal Yield Pressure 78MPa can’t meet 9 x ID 5~6mm jet nozzles perforating requirements.
 In fracturing stage, to J55 casing well, annular surface pressure should be less than or equal to 7 m3/min, to N80
casing well, annular surface pressure should be less than or equal to 11 m3/min. And to expansion packer, CT flow
rate should be more than 0.8m3/min, to compression packer, CT flow rate should be more than 1.5m3/min, according
to the actual situation. As well, CT flow rate is more than 0.5m3/min, so that can make hydraulic anchor working.

Conclusion
 By hydraulic perforation, stress relaxation can be formed, and brings no compaction, which is beneficial to reservoir
protection.
 By The annulus delivery, the friction reduces and flow rate increases, so that large-scale fracturing is accomplished.
 By utilizing expansion packer and hydraulic anchor, setting and unsetting can do much more times, so that reduce the
trips of BHA.
 By dragging coiled tubing, work efficiency of multistage fracturing is improved.
 By integration of perforating and fracturing, construction cost is reduced.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their appreciation to Downhole Service Company of Daqing oilfield Co.,Ltd for the
opportunity to publish and present this paper.

Nomenclature
CT = coiled tubing
BHA = bottom hole assembly
TVD = total vertical depth
FMP = formational pressure
ID = inner diameter
BOP = blow out preventer
BHST = bottom hole standard temperature
BHSP = bottom hole standard pressure
PBTD = plug back total depth

References
Rob Hari, SPE, TriAxon ReSources; Lyle Laun, SPE, BJ Services Company Canada. 2010.Improvenments in Multistage Fracturing of
Horizontal Wells Using a Newly Introduced Single Trip Coiled Tubing Conveyed Annular Perforating and Fracturing Tool – Benefits,
Savings, and Case Histories. Paper IADC/SPE 127738 presented at the 2010 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2-4 February, 2010.
B.W. McDaniel, E.J. Marshall, L.E. East, and J.B. Surjaatmadja, Halliburton. 2006. CT-Deployed Hydrajet Perforating in Horizontal
Completions Provides New Approaches to Multistage Hydraulic Fracturing Applications. Paper SPE 100157 presented at the 2006
SPE/ICOTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, TX, U.S.A., 4-5 April 2006.
Juan Carlos Castaneda, SPE, Luis Castro, SPE, Steven Craig, SPE, Christopher Moore, SPE, James Myatt, BJ Services USA. 2010. Coiled
Tubing Fracturing: An Operational Review of a 43-Stage Barnett Shale Stimulation. Paper SPE 130678 presented at the SPE/ICOTA
Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 23-24 March 2010.