SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 23777

Frac-Pack: An Innovative Stimulation and Sand Control Technique

B.W. Hainey, ARCO E&P Technology, and J.C. Troncoso, AACO Oil & Gas CO.
SPE Members

Copyright 1992, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE IntI. Symposium on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, LouiSiana, February 26-27, 1992.

This paper was selected for pre~entation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained In an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper.
as prese~ted, 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 ~ Society of Pe~eum En~lneer~, Its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committeas of the Soolaty
of Petroleum Engmeers. PermiSsiOn to copy IS restriCted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Uluetrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730969 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT developed, shale content is higher, clays are more

A frac-pack technique combines the stimulation advantages
of a highly conductive hydraunc fracture with the sand control
of a gravel pack to improve productivity in low to moderate
permeability, unconsolidated formations. This paper
presents the results of two offshore field tests in the Gulf of
Mexico which evaluate different fracturing fluids,
unconventional proppant sizes and new gravel packing
tools. Aspects of reservoir candidate selection, pre- and
post-frac pressure testing, and production results are
addressed. This paper examines the layout of equipment,
fracture treatment design, and on-site fracture optimization
through minifrac testing.
The first field test explores the use of platform mounted
gravel pack tanks with batch mixed sand slurries in a linear
hydroxypropyl guar (HPG) gel that is crosslinked with
Borate on the fly. The second field test investigates the
use of linear hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC) gel as a fracturing
fluid with a conventional blender and gravity feed proppant
silo on a stimulation boat moored along side the production
platform. These field tests demonstrate a frac-pack
technique can provide practical and cost effective fracture
stimulation and sand control in the offshore environment.
INTRODUCTION
The South Pass Block 61 Field is a salt dome structure
located about seven miles offshore from the Mississippi
River delta in approximately 200 feet of water. Oil
production occurs from numerous sandstone reservoirs on
the flanks of the salt dome. These reservoirs are formed
primarily by' radial and peripheral faulting. Reservoir quality
differs sigmficantly from location to location. On the west and
north flank of the field, reservoir quality is usually medium to
good. These unconsolidated sands are generally more
developed, cleaner, and more permeable (over 100 md
on the average). On the east flank the sands are less
References and illustrations at end of paper.
abundant, and the resulting permeability is much lower (less
than 50 md). Completion practices in the past have not
varied between the different sands and the same
completion practices were applied fieldwide. As
expected, completions in the lower permeability sands
were mediocre and Short-lived. A review of these
completion practices indicated the need for a different
approach to develop these low permeability sands. Poor
performance resulting from drilling damage, clay swelling, in-
situ reactions with stimulation and completion fluids, sand
lamination, tines migration, and heterogeneities are just a
few of the problems that were addressed. This review led
to the development of a hydraulic fracturing treatment for
soft formations including sand control practices, known in the
industry as "frac-pack" completions. This paper presents
the highlights and shortcomings of two recent frac-pack
completions in the South Pass Block 61 Reid.
FLUID SELECTION
The ideal frac-paCk fluid for an offshore Gulf coast treatment
needs a variety of conflicting properties. The fluid must
have sufficient viscosity to create a fracture wide enough to
place the high proppant concentrations necessary for a
highly conductive fracture and must also provide adequate
control of leakoff into the formation. The fluid must be able
to suspend proppant under the high shear conditions of
being pumped down tubing in highly deviated wellbores,
tum the corner thr~h the perforations, and still transport the
proppant to the tiP of the fracture in its low shear
environment. At the same time, the fluid should have low
tubing friction! be compatible with the formation, and clean
up after the treatment with minimal proppant pack damage.
The ideal fluid would also be easy to mix in the field, safe to
use, and cost effective.
Two fluids were evaluated for their combination of these
properties, a 40 Ibm/1000 gal HPG gel crosslinked with
Borate and an 80 Ibm/1 000 gal linear HEC gel. Both
treatment fluids were prepared from fresh water with 2%
potassium chloride (KCL), a surfactant, a clay stabilizer,

103
2 Frac-Pack: An Innovative Stimulation and Sand Control Technique
and a bactericide added. To test the relative strengths of
each fluid, the crosslinked HPG fluid system was used in the
first field test on the A-10 well while the linear HEC fluid
system was used in the second field trial on the D-9 well.
The greater viscosity of a crosslinked HPG fluid should
create a wider fracture, provide greater leakoff control, and
afford superior proppant transport characteristics. However,
at the low reservoir temperature of the target formations
(135 0 F), the crosslinked fluid could have more gel residue
and Significantly lower retained proppant pack permeability.
The HPG fluid also proved more difficult to mix in the field
because of a simple lack of familiarity with that fluid in the
offshore arena.
The cleaner break of a linear HEC fluid should provide a
higher retained proppant pack permeability. To achieve
improved fracture conductivity, sufficient viscosity must also
be developed to permit the pumping of high proppant
concentrations without bridging in the fracture prematurely.
In addition, the lack of a wall building property to control
leakoff with HEC might prove to be an advantage rather
than a shortcoming when attempting a tip screenout fracture
design.
PROPPANT AND GRAVEL PACK SELECTION
In conventional sand control operations, a gravel pack sand
size of five or six times that of the mean formation grain size
is typical. For South Pass Block 61 Field, this resulted in the
use of 40/60 mesh (425-250 11m) gravel pack sand. While
conventional gravel pack completions using 40/60 mesh
gravel pack sand succeeded in controlling sand production,
fractured well production simulations indicated 40/60 mesh
sand would only result in a marginal improvement in flow
efficiency if used as a proppant in fracturing treatments.
Larger gravel sizes would be needed for substantial
increases in flow efficiency, but since sand control was still
the primary concern, the proppant needed to both control
formation sand production and increase flow efficiency.
To evaluate the ability of a larger than conventional gravel
pack grain size to control sand production, tests were
conducted in the laboratory using conventional core plugs
taken from an offset well after the routine core analYSis
procedures were completed 1 . Two core plugs were
picked on the basis of their air permeability (420 md and
232 md) and sample characteristics. The tests consisted of
flow through the core plug and a proppant sand section. A
confining stress of 800 psi was applied with a rubber
sleeve and injection was conducted at a constant pressure
of 600 psi. No back pressure was applied on the effluent
end of the core/proppant assembly. The core plug was
loaded at one end of the mUlti-tap rubber sleeve, with the
balance loaded with proppant of 16/20 mesh (1200-600
11m) size. Initially, flow was established. with filtered
formation water and continued for several days with no
indication of sand production. Two-phase flow was then
initiated with carbon dioxide to further test the control of sand
production under more aggressive conditions, again with
similar results. Upon completion of the tests, the 16/20
mesh gravel section showed no formation sand invasion.
These experimental tests demonstrated that larger than
conventional gravel sizes could effectively prevent sand
production because the formation sand grains were
mobilized as agglomerates.
104
SPE 23777
FRACTURE DESIGN
Achieving significant production stimul~tion ~f wells with
permeability in the 50 md range reqUires high fracture
conductivity more than extensive fracture .length 2 . To
accomplish this conductivity, high concentrations of 16/20
mesh proppant and a tip screenput design we~e
employed. In a tip screenout deSign, the pad flUid
depletes before the last slurry stages have been di.splaced
into the formation, causing proppant to reach the tiP of the
fracture where it bridges and stops furth~r fractu~e
extension. Continued pumping causes an Increas.e In
fracture net pressure which balloons t.he fracture Width,
allows additional proppant to be pac~~d In the fracture, an,d
provides increased fracture conductiVity. The low Young.s
modulus estimated for these soft Gulf coast sandstones IS
particularly well suited to this technique.
A pseudo 3-D fracture simulator was used to design the
fracture treatments. The first frac-pack candidate, the A-1.0
well, was completed at a total vertical dep~h of 4390 ~eet In
an unconsolidated, 41 foot sandstone Interval With an
average sidewall core permeability of 50 md and a
bottomhole temperature of 1350 F. The pay zone was
well bounded by thick shale sections ~oth above and
below, providing excellent fracture cont.alnment. f. total
leakoff coefficient of 0.0065 gaVsq rt min was estu~a~ed
from the service company catalogue of wall bUilding
properties (Cw) for a 40# crosslinked HPG fluid. ~~d
combined with calculations of Darcy and compressibility
leakoff factors. A small 175 bbl pad stage was employed
to limit fracture extension to approximately 150 feet. The
low modulus assumed for the formation, 0.4 E+06 ~si,
provided ample fracture width to allow an aggressive
scheduling of proppant, with 35 bbl stages of 3 and then 6
Ibm/gal followed by a 50 bbl 9 Ibm/gal stage and a 42 bbl
12 Ibm/gal stage. Concentrating the 38,000 pounds of
16/20 mesh proppant into a 150 foot fracture lengt.h. was
deSigned to accomplish an average fracture conductiVity of
5000md-ft and an average in-situ concentration of over 3
Ibm/sq ft.
A similar design was planned for th~ sec~nd field te~t on
the D-9 well though a different fractunng flUid, an 80# ~In~ar
HEC, was to be used. Owing to the lack of wall bUlldl~g
with HEC a higher leakoff rate was expected for thiS
treatment than for the 40# crosslinked HPG used in the first
treatment. A totalleakoff coefficient of 0.01 gaVsq rt min and
a 15% fluid efficiency were assumed for the preliminary
design. A final fluid loss coefficient would b~ calcul~ted on-
site, with a minifrac. The pay zone at thiS location was
thinner, 27 feet, and had a much lower expected
permeability. Pumped at 10 bbl/min, a 10,000 gallon pad
volume was sized to create a 200 foot fracture lenQth.
Modeling with the P3-D fracture simulator showed suffiCient
fracture width to ramp the proppant stages even more
aggressively without proppant bridging premat.urely.
Proppant was started at 6 Ibm/gal and ramped rap!dly to
12 Ibm/gal pumping a total of 30,000 pounds. Again, the
final proppant stage would be underdisplaced to provide
gravel in the casing to surround the auger pack.
WELL COMPLETIONS
Table One compares the A-10 a~d D-9 frac-pack
completion operations to a ~onventlonal. gra~el pack
completion in South Pass 61 Field. Perforating With a 5~0
psi underbalance using tubing conveyed gunsload.ed ~Ith
a shot density of 12 shots per f~ot and 1200 phaSing Is.a
standard practice. Perforation tunnel cleanup IS
 SPE 23777 B. W. Hainey and J. C. Troncoso
accomplished through a short flow test immediately after.
Special attention is given in each case to wellbore cleanup
to minimize or eliminate mixing of formation sand
perforating debris, and proppanVgravel pack sand which
could result in a reduction in permeability around the
wellbore. Sand control operations in all three cases may be
achieved with a circulating pack across the prepack screen
assembly .. For the two frac-pack completions this was
immediately accomplished with the underdisplaced slurry
left in the wellbore and did not require a circulating pack.
The A-10 well was completed in September, 1990. After
being flowed for 2.5 hours for perforation clean up, the well
was shut in for a 6 hour buildup test. The analysis of this
buildup test was questionable since calculated
p!3rmeabilities were too high when compared to measured
Sidewall core permeabilities for the formation.
Instantaneous measured rates during the flowback tests
ranged from 700 to 1000 bopd with an estimated
drawdown during this flow period of approximately 200
~si. The. instantaneous oil rat~s recorded during this short
time I?erlod were unusually high when compared to fluid
rates In offset completions. Past experience in the field has
shown these reservoirs exhibit extremely high declines and
can not sustain commercial oil rates without stimulation. After
the wellbore clean up, the gravel pack and screen
assembly was run in place (Fig. 1). A conventional gravel
pack tool with a modified crossover was used to pump the
treatment. 3
Completed in June 1991, the 0-9 well was also perforated
with an underbalance of 500 psi using tubing conveyed
guns loaded with a shot density of 12 shots per foot and
120 0 phasing like th~ A-10 well. After perforating, a pre-
frac flow test and bUildUp were attempted but the well did
not flow naturally. While cleaning the wellbore only small
amounts of gas and oil were recovered. Review of the
memory gauge data indicated a very tight formation and
downhole plugging. Follow up operations after the fracture
treatment would include running an auger screen and a
gravel pack/crossover assembly4 through underdisplaced
proppant left in the casing (Fig. 1).
EQUIPMENT LAYOUT
In the first field test on the A-1 0 well, space was available to
place all the needed skid mounted fracturing equipment on
the "A" production platform. This included three 105 bbl
gravel pack tanks, each with three 35 bbl compartments
and two with additional power pack units, tandem 50 bbl
cement ~Ienders with impellers and reCirculating pumps,
two centnf~gal transfer pumps, two 700 hhp high pressure
pumps, a high pressure filter, a crosslinker injection pump,
and a small data acquisition system capable of digitally
recording treatment pressures. In this layout all the
pr~pp~nt, contain.ed in 3,000 pou~d bags, was to be batch
mixed In the 40# linear HPG gel flUid and crosslinked on the
fly.
In the second frac-pack test on the 0-9 well, the poor results
from batch mixing and the limited availability of platform
space required the fracturing equipment be placed on an
auxiliary vessel. An acid stimulation boat was available that
could contain all the necessary fluid and proppant in storage
tanks below decks. Placed on the deck of the boat were
three skid mounted high pressure pumps, a conventional
onshore blender truck, a gravity feed proppant silo, and a
computer control and data acquisition van. The slurry would
be brought to the production platform through a coflex hose
105
3
where it connected with conventional frac iron tied in to the
wellhead on the rig floor.
MINIFRAC TESTING
Because of a limited availability of fracturing fluid on locatiorf
for the A-10 treatment, only a step rate test using
completion fluid was performed before the main fracture
treatment to get an indication of fracture extension pressure.
The pressure decline following the step rate test was also
monitored to determine closure pressure. Treating
pressures for injection rates from 1/2 to 10 bbVmin were
mon!tored for 2 minute intervals (Fig. 2). Bottomhole
treating pressures were calculated by calibrating tubing
friction correlations with the instantaneous shut-in pressure at
the end of the step rate test. Plotting calculated bottomhole
pressure vs. injection rate (Fig. 3) showed some change in
slope between 2 and 5 bbl/min indicating a possible
fracture extension pressure of 2400 psi. Analysis of the
pressure declineS, plotting bottomhole pressure vs. the
square root of shut-in time (Fig. 4) showed an apparent
fracture closure at a pressure of 2500 psi. Use of the more
viscous fracturing fluid instead of a high leakoff rate
completion fluid might have resulted in a more conclusive
interpretation.
Before pumping the 0-9 treatment, a 2700 gal minifrac,
approximately 30% of the pad size to be used in the main
job, was pumped to determine fluid efficiency, fracture
closure pressure, and totalleakoff coefficient. The minifrac
was pumped at 8 bbVmin and the surface pressure decline
monitored for twice the pump time. Hydrostatic pressure
was added to the surface pressure reading to approximate
bottomhole pressure. Analysis of the pressure decline,
plotting bottom hole pressure vs. the square root of shut-in
time (Fig. 5), showed two possible interpretations of
fracture closure. Pressure deviated downward from an initial
straight line trend at 2540 psi indicating possible fracture
closure after a shut-in time of 1.7 minutes. Based on this
interpretation of closure, the 80# HEC fluid would have a
fluid efficiency of 18% and a total fluid loss coefficient of
0.0063 gallsq rt min. This leakoff rate was close to the
expected 15% efficiency and would require no change in
the designed pad size. A second possible straight line
trend followed; however, deviating upward at a pressure of
2320 and a closure time of 4.8 minutes. This interpretation
of fracture closure would result in a fluid efficiency of 35%
and a total fluid loss coefficient of 0.0031 gal/sq rt min.
Having only the square root of time plot available on
location and lacking an independent measurement of
closure, the more conservative early closure was selected
for use in determining leakoff rate and pad size.
The results of the 0-9 fracture treatment and further off-site
evaluation of the minifrac data strongly indicate that deviation
from the latter straight line trend represented the true fracture
closure and actual fluid efficiency. Analysis of the minifrac
pressure decline (Fig. 6) plotting bottomhole pressure vs.
the G Function6 discounted the earlier, higher stress closure
and confirmed the latter closure at 2320 psi. A plot of
bottomhole pressure vs. Horner Time 7 also proved helpful
in determining the onset of the pseudoradial flow period
and in defining fracture closure (Fig. 7).
A-10 FRAC-PACK TREATMENT
With the gravel pack tool in squeeze pOSition, the fracture
treatment was pumped at the highest rate possible,
approximately 11 bbl/min, to create the maximum fracture
 4 Frac-Pack: An Innovative Stimulation and Sand Control Technique
wi~th given the. limited amount of horsepower available
(FIg. 8). Pumping seventy barrels of a 20 Ibm/1000 gal
linear J:lPG prepad initiated the fracture and conditioned the
fo.rmatlon .. A 175 bbl pad stage of 40 Ibm/1000 gal HPG
wIth crossllnker added on the fly, was pumped to create a
150 foot fracture length. Thirty five barrel slurry stages of 3
Ibm/gal and then 6 Ibm/gal, 16/20 mesh sand followed
next. The sand was batch mixed with the fluid in the two 35
~bl gravel pack blender tanks with power packs units and
!mpellers tc? supply the agitation needed to keep the sand
In suspensIon. The fifty barrel 9 Ibm/gal slurry stage was
scheduled next but could not be completed because sand
had s~ttled out in .the. t~ndem blender, screening out the
outlet line and h?ltlng Injection. Despite an 18 minute shut
down,. proppa~t In the well~0.re remained suspended in the
crosslinked f!uld. The remainIng slurry in the workstring was
dIsplaced WIth completion fluid to the crossover port and
the fra~ture all~wed to close. After reversing out the
remaining sand In the workstring, the crossover tool was
moved to the .upper.circulating pOSition and circulation was
attemp~ed. CIrculatIon could not be established confirming
a pack In the annulus was accomplished.
D-9 FRAC-PACK TREATMENT
Once clean up operations were completed, a packer with a
mule shoe on bottom was set above the perforations to
con~uct the fracture treatment. The availability of proppant
requIred a change ~rom 16/20 mesh gravel to 16/30 mesh
(1~~0-600 Jlm). WIth the leakoff rate determined from the
mlnlfrac, a 10,000 gal pad stage of 80 Ibm/1000 gal linear
HEy gel was pumped at 10 bbllmin to create the
deSIgned 200 foot fracture half-length (Fig. 9). A 4600
gal/30,OOO Ibm slurry stage followed with proppant being
ramped from 0 to 12 Ibm/gal using a conventional onshore
blender truck a~d a gravlt~ fe~d proppant silo. A pumping
rate of ~ 0 bbl/mln wa~ malntal.ne~ u~til the final slurry was
placed In the work~tnng. No indIcatIon of a tip screenout
was.observed dunng the treatment. Going to flush, the
treatl~g rate was. reduced to 5 bbl/min and then 3 bbVmin to
help Indu~e a tIP screen out by allowing more time for
leakoff. Finally the pumps were shutdown when the slurry
was at the packer and the fracture allowed to close.
In pr~paration for completion operations the
underdlsplaced slurry left in the casing was allo~ed to
dehydrate. Leaving. approximately 15 feet of proppant
a~oye the. l?erforatlOns was planned to minimize or
eliminate ~IXlng of formation sand and proppant. Note that
t~e augenng of the screen would result in an uphole
dIsplacement of the proppant in the auger-screen annulus.
Once the top of the sand was confirmed with a correlation
log, the auger assembly was run to the top of the sand and
augere.d across the perforated interval. This operation went
exceptIonally well as the screen assembly augered at less
t~an 250 Ibf-ft of torque with 500 Ibm weight on the auger
bIt. Once the screen and gravel pack assembly were in
pla~e the Rack ~as successfully tested with the crossover
tool In the CIrculating position.
POST-ERAC RESULTS
Post-frac simulation of the aborted A-1 0 fracture treatment
sho.we~ a 26 foot prol?ped fracture length was created with
an In-SI~U. concentratton of 2.8 Ibm/sq ft and an average
conductIVIty of over 5000 md-ft. After treatment the A-10
well.wa,s left ~hut in for over two months due to pipeline
repaIrs In the fIeld. Initial rates were in the 200 to 300 bopd
range on natural flow (Fig. 10). A 24-hr pressure build up
106
SPE 23777
test run after two weeks of production showed an
unexpectedly high drawdown of 800 psi. The buildup test
also showed no indication of fracturing and the presence of
skin damage. The first is explained due to the short fracture
length and the small amount of proppant placed. The
presence of skin damage is attributable to the fracturing fluid
and completion fluid left in the formation for an extended
period of time, prior to bringing the well on production. This
damage was partially or totally removed with production.
Tubing hydraulic calculations based on prOduction test data
indicated a drawdown decrease from 800 psi to less than
500 psi for the same production rates. A longer pressure
buildup test is now planned to help quantify the benefit of
the frac-pack treatment. Although pressure transient
analysis has been inconclusive in helping to quantify frac
pack benefits, sustained production rates in A-10 are very
encouraging. Limited production performance also
compares very favorably to performance of conventional
gravel pack completions in formations of similar sand quality.
Simulation of the D-9 well fracture treatment using the total
leakoff coefficient determined from post-treatment analysis
showed a fracture was created with a 500 foot half length, a
height of 29 feet, an average width of 0.22 inches and an
average conductivity of 2943 md-ft. No tip screenout was
achieved. The D-9 well was brought on production on gas
lift at a rate of approximately 130 bopd (Fig. 11). This rate
gradually declined to the present rates of 50 bopd over the
first six month period. A pressure build up test run after a
month of production showed formation damage, no
indication of hydraulic fracturing, and an in-situ permeability of
17 md. As in the previous frac-pack completion, the
benefits of this treatment have not yet been quantified by
brief pressure transient testing available to date. The
sustained oil rate to date from a well not able to produce
prior to the treatment is a strong indication of improved
production performance. The production data to date has
shown that larger than conventional gravel can control
formation sand production. This confirms the results of the
experimental tests conducted to select the proppant and
gravel pack sand for these completions.
CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary production data indicates that frac-pack
completions perform better than conventional gravel pack
completions in low permeability sands.
Production test data to date also indicates that a larger than
conventional gravel pack sand size (16/20 and 16/30
mesh) can control formation sand production in the South
Pass 61 Field with drawdowns as hIgh as 800 psi.
The use of conventional fracturing equipment on an auxiliary
vessel to mix the slurry on the fly proved much more
effective than batch mixing the proppant and fluid together
on the platform itself.
An 80 Ibm/1000 gal linear HEC gel proved to be a more
than adequate fracturing fluid for the formation temperature
of 1350 F. An even lower polymer loading might be
considered on future frae-pack completions.
The use of higher viSCOSity fracturing fluids would make the
results of step rate tests in soft, high leakoff formations more
definitive. Analysis of the minifrac pressure decline data
could be made more conclusively with the G Function and
Horner Time plots in addition to Square Root of Time plot.
 SPE 23777 B. W. Hainey and J. C. Troncoso 5

While preliminary production data is encouraging, further

long term pressure buildup testing is needed to quantify the
benefits of a frac-pack completion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge D. J. Blumer for his

contribution throughout this project and S. M. McDermott for
help in composing the manuscript. We also thank the
management of ARCO Oil and Gas Company for
permission to publish this work.
SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

bbl x 1.589873 E-01 = m3

ft x 3.048* E-01 = m
gal x 3.785412 E-03 = rna
Ibm x 4.535924
~
E-01 =
~Si x 6.894757 E+OO =
bf-ft x 1.355818 E+OO = Nm
hhp x 7.46043 E-01 = kW
indl x 2.54* E+01 = mm
OF x (OF-32)/1.8 = °C
* Conversion factor is exact

REFERENCES

1. Leone, J. A.; Parmley, J.B.; and Mana, M. L.: "Gravel-

Sizing Criteria for Sand Control and Productivity
Optimization," paper SPE 20029 presented at the
1990 Annual SPE California Regional Meeting, Ventura,
CA, April 4-6.

2. McGuire, W. J., and Sikora, V. J.:"The Effect of Vertical

Fractures on Well Productivity" Trans., AIME (1960)
219, 401-403.

3. Donovan, J. F.; Johnson, M. H.; and Salerni, J.

V.:"Study of Effects Upon Gravel-Pack Systems During
Frac-Pack Operations," paper SPE 22857 presented
at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Oct. 6-9.

4. Cornette, H. M., Johnson, M. H., and Richard, B. M.:

"Gravel Pack Well Completion with Auger-Screen," U.
S. Patent No. 5,036,920 (1991).

5. Nolte, K. G.: "Fracture Design Considerations Based on

Pressure Analysis," paper SPE 10911 presented at
the 1982 SPE Cotton Valley Symposium, Tyler, TX,
May 20.

6. Castillo, J. L., "Modified Fracture Pressure Decline

Analysis Including Pressure-Dependent Leakoff." paper
SPE 16417 presented at the 1987 SPE/DOE Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver
Colorado, May 18-19.

7. Earlougher, R. C., Advances in Well Test Analysis.

Monograph Series Volume 5, SPE, (1977) 77-79
,-

107
 SPE 2377 7

Table 1. Completion Operations Comparison

South Pass Block 61 Field

{;onventional A:.1.2
Gravel pack Frac-pack Fra~ack
Perforating 500 psi Nitrogen 500 psi Nitrogen 500 psi Nitrogen
Underbalanced Underbalanced Underbalanced
Perforation Clean- Well Flowback Well Flowback Well Flowback
Up
Gravel pack or I Run Assembly in Run assembly in
Frac Pack place place

Step rate injection Mini-frac

test

Acid/prepack Frac treatment Frac treatment

Circulating pack Circulating pack Establish top of

(if needed) sand

Auger assembly
in place

Run completion Run completion Circulating pack

assembly assembly (if needed)

Run completion
assemblv

GRAVEL PACK/FRAC-PACK COMPLETIONS

SOUTH PASS BLOCK 61 FIELD

108
 IPE 2371 7
Figure 2
South Pass 61 A-10 Step Rate Test

Bottomhole Pressure (psi) Rate (bbllmin)

4000.---------------~--------------------------_r20

~
3000
~ 15

2000 10

,," ---'
1000 r- -.... _, 5

,:
'.
," ~~I\. ___ ·.J

----/---'
o~--------~----------~------~~----------~o
o w ro ~ ~

Time (min)

Figure 3
South Pass 61 A-10 Step Rate Plot

Bottomhole Pressure (psi)

3200r---------------~--------------------------~

2800

2400 Extension Pressure

2000~------~--------~------~~------~------~

o 2 4 6 8 10
Rate (bbllmin)

Figure 4
South Pass 61 A-10 Square Root Time Plot

Bottomhole Pressure (psi)

3500,--------------------------------------------.
Mellsured Dlltll
Strllight Line Trend
3000

2500 - Closure

2000

1500~------~--------~------~--------~------~

o 2 3 4 5
Square Root Time (sq rt min)

109
 SPE 23 77 ~

Figure 5 Figure 6
South Pass 61 0-9 Square Root Time Plot South Pass 61 0-9 G Function Plot

Bottomhole Pressure (psi) Bottomhole Pressure (psi)

2800r---------------~--------------------------~ 2800,--------------------------------------------.
Measured Data
Straight Line Trend
2600
Possible Closure

2400 2400
Actual Closure _ Closure

2200 2200
,,
Measured Data
Straight Line Trends
2000L=======~~====~~--------~--------~ 2000
o 1 2 3 4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Square Root Time (sq rt min) G Function

Figure 7
Figure 8
South Pass 61 0-9 Horner Plot
South Pass 61 A-1O Fracture Treatment
Bottomhole Pressure (psi)
2800,---------------~---------------------------. Surface Pressure (psi) Rate (bbl/min) and Conc. (ppg)
6000.-------------~--------------~--------~~~15

STP
Rate
2600
,,\..; "' ... 1.. J .. - 'r '" ~"'"~ _./ '" ..... ""./ ... .1.,...-
.,
_'I Cone.
4000 10

2400

5
2200
Measured Data
Straight Line Tend ..".,
2000L--------i--------~------~---------L------~
O~------~------L---~~--~--~-------L--~~·L·'~O
".
o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Horner Time (tp+dt)/dt
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (min)
 Sr'£ 2377 7
Figure 10
Figure 9 South Pass 61 A-1Q Production
South Pass 61 0-9 Fracture Treatment
Rate (bfpd) and Pressure (psi) Water Cut (%)
1oooc-----~------------~--------------------~100
Surface Pressure (psi) Rate (bbl/min) and Conc. (ppg)
3000~------------~------------------------~~,30

- STP
80

2000 20 60
100
40

1000 _~- - - --- 10 - BFPO

_ WATER CUT 20
, --- FTP
- - -,
'\
,
, 10 0
o~----==-L--------~~----~----~=u~'-=--~----LO DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
o w ro ~ ~ w 119901 1991 1
Time (min) 'Gas Lift Injection

Figure 11
South Pass 61 0-9 Production

Rate (bopd and mcfpd)

1000,-----~------~--------------------------_.

- BOPO
---. MCFPO

100

No Water Production

10L-----~-----L-----J------L------L----~----~
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1 1991 1

Gas Lift Injection