SPE 60690 Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing - Recent Developments and Case Histories

W.G. Gavin, Nowsco-Fracmaster/B.J. Services Ltd.

Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable held in Houston, TX, 56 April 2000. 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 Fracturing through coiled tubing has progressed considerably since the first job done in 1993. In southeastern Alberta large numbers of wells are being selectively fractured through coiled tubing with mechanical isolation tools. Conventional fracturing techniques may result in small lenses that have the potential to contribute to production being either bypassed, or ineffectively treated. By utilizing coiled tubing and selective fracturing, all contributing zones can be fractured and the full potential of the well realized. Up to eight zones are being treated per well. This paper will discuss work currently being undertaken with Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen energized water based fracturing fluids. A summary of work done to date and case histories will be presented. Current and future developments in isolation tools and fracturing fluids will be discussed and the issues regarding geographical technology transfer examined. The results of pumping fluids containing abrasive particulates at high pump rates through the coiled tubing are discussed with emphasis on abrasion of the pipe, fatigue and pressure limitations. Specific additional safety considerations are outlined and discussed. Introduction As of year end 1999 approximately 700 wells1 have been fractured industry wide using coiled tubing as a conduit. The number of zones per well varies from 1 to 8 and the total number of fracture treatments performed on these 700 wells is over 5,100. This technology has been predominantly limited to the shallow gas fields of southeastern Alberta.

It is difficult to ascertain when the first coiled tubing fracture treatment took place but a job was carried out in south-eastern Alberta2 in February, 1993 where a 25 tonne treatment was pumped through 73.0 mm (2-7/8 inch) coiled tubing at 3.0 m3/minute (18.9 bbl/min). The procedure was similar to that performed today with the exception that the coiled tubing was stung into a permanent packer. While the operational feasibility of fracturing through coiled tubing had been proven the commercial viability of the technique was still questionable and further development shelved. In 1997 the technique was refined for multi-zone fracturing3 which significantly impacted the commercial viability. The work described in this paper has been performed on gas wells and carried out with the well live. Standard practice is to fracture from the bottom zone up. Initially only one well was fractured per day (up to 8 zones) but this has progressed to two wells per day and the feasibility of three wells per day is being evaluated. Coiled tubing is an excellent medium for the operation as a rig would have to strip out of the hole with the well live. After fracturing the wells are cleaned out periodically with a shallow coiled tubing unit until sand production stops. Indications are that utilizing coiled tubing fracturing over conventional methods may halve the number of cleanouts in certain circumstances. Other driving forces for fracturing through coiled tubing are the desire to protect old (and/or corroded) casing and completion jewelry from the high pressures and potential erosion associated with the treatment. Fracture design For the work evaluated in this study cross-linked water based fracturing fluids are predominantly used in the operation. In general, between five and twenty metric tons of sand is placed at concentrations up to 1800 kg/m3. The fluid is energized with liquid CO2 or gaseous Nitrogen to aid in flowback after the treatment. Liquid CO2 was used in over 95% of the fracture treatments reviewed. Forced closure has been used on some of the treatments, thus, requiring immediate flowback. Pump rates of between 1.2 and 2.5 m3/minute (7.55 to 15.73 bbl/min) are standard. One contentious issue in the design is the displacement of the fracture treatment. From an operational perspective displacing the sand laden treatment fluid to the perforations

W.G. GAVIN

SPE 60690

has the significant benefit of reducing or eliminating the quantity of frac sand left in the wellbore. This reduces the chances of becoming stuck in hole with the isolation tool. The majority of jobs covered in this paper were underdisplaced by 0.25 to 0.5 m3. There is some debate as to the merits of displacing to the perforations but it should be noted that a number of jobs have been carried out using this technique and it must be considered viable in some formations specific to the Western Canadian basin. An examination of the data presented in Figure 1 shows the fracture gradients of 197 fracture treatments. Based on the Instantaneous Shut In Pressure (acknowledging that these gradients will be somewhat larger than closure pressures gradients) the downhole pressure is sufficient to lift the overburden in 20 to 30% of the jobs surveyed. While this may suggest that pancake fractures or fractures at some orthogonal angle relative to the wellbore will result, it is not conclusive. To date the author is unaware of any investigation of fracture orientation specifically related to coiled tubing conveyed treatments. Friction pressures are more difficult to predict in coiled tubing operations due to the tubing still on the reel during the treatment. A graphical representation of friction pressure gradient obtained from jobs done to the end of October, 1999 can be found in Figures 2 and 3. The coiled tubing on the reel will have a higher friction gradient than that in the hole, on average approximately 40% of the pipe is still on the reel during the treatment. Formation Description The majority of fracture stimulations to date are in the Lower and Upper Cretaceous formations of the Southern Plains of Alberta. These include the Bow Island, Foremost, Medicine Hat, Milk River, Oldman, Second White Specks, and Viking. A comprehensive study of the Milk River Formation5 revealed that most of the gas pool comprises of marine siltstones and mudstones with no sandstone being present. Siltstone lenses are generally less than 1 cm thick, some of these lenses may be interconnected vertically giving some degree of horizontal continuity. Siltstones and mudstones are typical of some of the other formations in the Lower and Upper Cretaceous and these may exhibit similar properties to the Milk River. The geology of the Milk River formation (and probably others in southeastern Alberta) results in a multitude of very thin producing lenses. The target zones for fracturing are thus well suited to coiled tubing fracturing. Case Histories Case History A. 26 wells were treated in Case History A. The majority of treatments were in the Milk River formation although some were conducted in the Medicine Hat. A total of 101 fractures were planned. In general two or three additional fracture treatments were carried out than would be done with conventional fracturing. Communication was seen in eight of the treatments but this may be a conservative estimate, as all occurrences of communication were not reported. One well

could not be treated due to straddle tool cup damage while running in hole (possibly from damaged casing). Of the 26 wells, 10 were new drills and 16 recompletions. Communication between zones was found in 70% of the new drills and only 6% of the recompletions. In a bid to reduce costs a number of more economical cement blends and/or practices are being used for primary cementing in the new wells. While these blends are sufficient for conventional fracturing they may need to be optimized for Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing. Most communication was in the Milk River perforated interval. The communication was seen prior to commencement of the fracture treatment. Production data from conventionally fractured offset wells resulted in an expectation of 1.0 e3m3/day (35,315 scf/day) gas production. Results from the first eight wells were an average of 1.42 e3m3/day (50,147 scf/day). The relatively low production rates highlight the need to minimize costs in the area, these production rates are normal for the majority of the shallow gas region of Alberta. Many wells take between two and four years to pay out but will continue to produce for many years. Advantages to Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing were simpler logistics, earlier production (perforate one day, fracture the next, clean up overnight and put on production day three) and increased production. Conventional fracturing would take approximately four times as long. There were growing pains associated with the project and consistency of crews and good communications is a critical part of the operation. Four of the wells fractured were owned by a third party where Company A owned the rights to the Milk River gas and Company B owned the rights to the Medicine Hat gas. In this case Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing brought the additional benefit of minimizing down time of the other formation. Case History B. Four wells were treated in case history B. The Medicine Hat and Milk River formations were fractured. A total of 22 fractures were planned but five zones communicated and two sanded off leaving 15 fracture treatments completed. Typical wells in this area produce between 1 and 2 e3m3/day (35,315 to 70,630 scf/day). Two wells showed an increase in production and two showed a decrease when compared to offset wells. Resultant average production was what would have been expected fom conventionally fractured wells. The five fractures not completed due to communication left some unrealized production. There are additional costs associated with coiled tubing fracturing and thus the campaign was not a commercial success. It is unlikely that completion of the five fracture treatments (abandoned due to pre-fracture communication) would have made a significant impact on this. Cementing practices may need to be optimized for coiled tubing fracturing. Standard practice with conventional fracturing was to perform two fracture treatments, whereas up to eight were planned with coiled tubing. 70 to 75 metric tons of sand was planned to be used on each well but only 55 metric tons was

SPE 60690

FRACTURING THROUGH COILED TUBING - RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND CASE HISTORIES

pumped due to communication. The extra fracture treatments resulted in 150 to 170 m3 of fluid being pumped as opposed to the conventional 35 to 60 m3. Fluid recovery from conventional and coiled tubing fracs was 65% but more clean outs were required on the coiled tubing work due to the increased fluid in hole. A summary of the 220 treatments in this study reveals the following breakdown. Summary of fracture treatments Number Fracture completed successfully 188 Communication (clean fluid) 17 Sand off 4 Packer could not reach required depth 3 Communication (sand) 3 Packer damage 2 Stuck tool 2 Pipe integrity breach 1 % 85.4 7.7 1.8 1.4 1.4 1 1 0.5

From the data above it can be seen that the technique has a very high success ratio. The communication (clean fluid) category is situations where communication with the zone above that to be fractured is found prior to pumping sand laden fluid. In this case the procedure is to move on to the next zone. The success of Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing has resulted in the technique being evaluated for application in a much wider market. Isolation Tools Aside from the 1993 treatment, the methods of isolation have been either an opposed cup straddle tool or a conventional squeeze packer. The opposed cup tool is the most forgiving of the tools as it is very simple, has no moving parts and requires no manipulation force to be transmitted from surface. The act of pressuring between the cups energizes them and an excellent seal is created. Differential pressures in excess of 52 MPa (7544 psi) can be tolerated. The opposed cup tool has another significant advantage in that the area between the cups can be pressurized to 1 to 2 MPa (145 to 290 psi) and pulled past a casing joint for depth correlation. An overpull of 1000 dN (2248 lbf) is typically seen when pulling past a casing joint. This is then cross-referenced to the CCL performed prior to perforating. Depth correlation is critical in locating the straddle across the interval to be fractured. The straddle length (i.e. distance between cups) is taken as the perforated interval plus a safety margin to allow for any depth inaccuracy. If possible the perforated interval length plus 1 metre either side is used although this has been reduced to 0.5 metre either side on some occasions. Minimizing the straddle length is important, as excessive BHA length requires pressure deployment techniques on land locations. For offshore locations minimizing the straddle distance may not be an issue as there is often a workable distance between the rig floor/skid

deck and the wellhead. A straddle length of 5.5 metres is considered to be the maximum for a Western Canadian operation without deployment being required. This criteria is based on safety, cost, and time considerations, since it is physically possible to deploy much longer BHAs. Deployment and retrieval are very time consuming and limit the number of treatments that can be achieved per day. When designing jobs with the opposed cup tool it must be noted that the cup will only hold pressure differential in one direction. If the pressure between the cups is less than that in the annulus then flow will result. After the first fracture treatment in the series is completed the pressure below the bottom cup may be greater than that between the cups. In the Western Canadian area most of the wells treated are new drills and the formation is tight enough to maintain a column of fluid. This has the benefit of allowing communication to be detected immediately by annular flow. Opposed cup tools are available for use in 114.3 mm (41/2 inch) and 139.7 mm (5-1/2 inch) casing sizes. A 177.8 mm (7 inch) casing model has been considered and will be built should sufficient work justify the development costs. The vast majority of jobs have been done using the opposed cup tool but some work with conventional squeeze packers has been carried out. These are useful when the perforated interval is long and only one treatment is required. The packer is simply set above the zone and set down weight applied. The treatment is then performed and any excess sand reversed out. The major concern using conventional tools is that sand will pack off in the internals of the tool causing problems unsetting or while pulling out of hole. These tools rely on hydraulic isolation behind the casing (between zones) for success. A good cement job is essential in the well construction phase. Optimizing cement bond is the subject of extensive research and is considered to be beyond the scope of this paper. Coiled Tubing Of the 63 wells reviewed in this paper, nine were fractured through 73.0 mm (2-7/8 inch) and fifty four through 60.3 mm (2-3/8 inch) coiled tubing. Grades 70 and 80 coiled tubing have been used but higher strength grades will be utilized in future operations. This will allow for higher pump rates (and hence pressures) to be utilized and may also result in less erosion due to increased metal hardness. Erosion. At typical pump rates (1.70 to 2.20 m3/minute) the velocity in the coiled tubing string (60.3 mm OD) is in the region of 14.0 to 18.1 metres/second (500 to 700 inches/second). Typical time taken for the sand to traverse the wraps of the tubing on the reel is in the order of 16 to 19 seconds. Sand concentrations of up to 1800 kg/m3 have been used in the fracturing operation and this gives rise to concerns regarding erosion on the internal diameter (ID) of the tubing. The erosion of the tubing in the well would arise from random impingement but the tubing on the reel would be subjected to random and direct impingement4. Extending the Elbow Radius Factor (ERF) concept introduced in reference 4 would suggest

W.G. GAVIN

SPE 60690

a penetration rate (based on direct impingement only) of the coiled tubing on the reel that is three orders of magnitude less than that of an equivalent diameter standard elbow. This work was carried out on relatively small sand concentrations and is unlikely to be directly comparable to coiled tubing fracturing. Field experience would suggest that erosion of the elbows in the treating iron is far less severe than the ERF concept predicts. Fracture treating iron is inspected every month or 30 jobs (depending on job frequency) and no unexpected change in wall thickness has been detected over the period under review. The erosive behaviour of the sand may be more complex than that proposed in reference 4. In that work the effect of a single bend was studied and the centripetal force on the sand is very short lived. It may be that the sand in the coiled tubing fracturing scenario migrates to the extrados of the pipe on the reel thus increasing the erosive properties. Additional work done on the transport of concentrated slurries6 indicates a third erosion method. This is friction erosion where the sliding bed of solid particles transmits a normal stress to the exposed pipe wall. Certain fracturing fluids seem to promote erosion of the coiled tubing and associated treatment iron. Figure 4 highlights the effects of accelerated erosion of the tubing on the reel. Figure 5 shows the potential for damage of the associated treating iron. The coiled tubing string in Figure 4 had 530 metric tons of sand pumped through it. A number of wells fractured with this string used a fracturing fluid with a viscosity closer to that of a linear gel and it is thought that the excessive erosion was due to the migration of the sand to the extrados of the pipe on the reel. The erosion of the intrados was negligible or absent, suggesting that random impingement was not a significant factor giving further weight to the theory of particle migration to the extrados. Wall thickness measurements for the pipe in Figure 4 were as follows. The original pipe was 60.3 mm outside diameter (OD), 4.45 mm wall thickness. Wall thickness (mm) Location Intrados Neutrados Extrados 252 metres from end 4.39 4.19 2.21 Reel end (1st 2.44m) 4.50 4.24 3.38 Reel end (2nd 2.13 m) 4.50 4.23 2.46 Reel end and end signifies the coiled tubing immediately downstream of the rotating joint. During the work discussed the tubing at 252 metres was always on the reel during the fracturing process (it would be the first section of tubing on the second wrap from the core). A variety of coiled tubing strings have been used for the operations. A summary of three strings follows. String/Grade Wall Running Metric tons Thickness metres sand #4074F/70 ksi 4.83 9780 414 #4850C/70 ksi 4.83 6873 400 #3341/80 ksi 4.45 13583 530

On all strings examined there was a degree of erosion on the extrados of the coil. One factor that could influence the erosion is the quality of the proppant (sand). Erosion could be exacerbated by the impingement of angular particles but the sand used has high sphericity and roundness values. Erosion may introduce a quantity of soluble iron and compromise the fracture fluid and/or the productive capability of the well. Limiting the erosion presents a conflict, as the more viscous crosslinked fracturing fluids are likely to give the least erosion but result in the highest friction pressure. Alternatively, selecting a linear gel or surfactant gel will reduce friction pressures but may encourage erosion. Fatigue. During the fracturing process the coiled tubing is subjected to very high pressures (up to 70% of Minimum Internal Yield Pressure). The coiled tubing is stationary during the high pressure pumping operation and thus does not contribute to cyclic fatigue. In the Southern Alberta area typical pressures while cycling the coil are in region of 200 to 1500 kPa which results in an available cycle life for 70/80 ksi pipe of between 78 (inner wrap) and 256 (outer wrap) trips. Safety. Before implementing this new technology a review of the safety issues was conducted. It was recognized that the pressures to which the tubing would be subjected, the pumping of very large quantities of an abrasive solid and the use of liquid CO2 to energize the flowback were all outside the standard coiled tubing operating envelope. The implications of expanding the operating envelope on three fronts simultaneously were carefully examined and a policy and procedures review carried out. Guidelines were formulated with regard to maximum test and operating pressures, fatigue monitoring, wall thickness monitoring, zones that could be fractured (sour zones were excluded), acceptable straddle length without pressure deployment, minimum wall thickness for new tubing, flowback policy, and a number of other criteria. Monitoring of the tubing has resulted in a maximum value for the cumulative quantity of sand being pumped through the tubing prior to retirement of the string. The string may be reversed and additional fracturing work done as the most severe erosion is confined to the pipe still on the work reel. Geographical Transfer of Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing Technology There are few problems associated with transferring this technology to other operating areas. The methodology and design engineering are critical but only small modifications to equipment are needed. If a location has the capability to run big pipe then the existing coiled tubing equipment will suffice. Opposed cup tools are readily available and easily mobilized. There are, however, a number of issues that will limit the application of the technique. 1. Unless the treatment is displaced to the perforations or

SPE 60690

FRACTURING THROUGH COILED TUBING - RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND CASE HISTORIES

2. 3.

4. 5. 6.

over displaced there is a requirement to flowback the well. Check valves cannot be run which may be in contravention of local regulatory requirements. The use of check valves with opposed cup tools is not recommended due to the likelihood of pressure locking the tool in blank casing. The tubing is stationary during flowback/reversing out, thus reducing the chance of a pinhole or other coiled tubing integrity breach associated with cycling. Large volume fracture treatments are less suitable for this technology. Pumping of hydrocarbon based fracturing fluids through coiled tubing may be against local regulatory requirements (or service company/operating company guidelines) thus limiting the techniques application in water sensitive formations. Crane lift limitations makes the transport of reels carrying large OD coiled tubing to offshore locations difficult. The technique is currently only applicable to wells with no production tubing in the hole. Space limitations on offshore platforms/rigs may preclude the use of the technique.

ongoing in the development of a through tubing straddle isolation system. Inflatable and other alternative sealing mechanisms are under consideration. Fracturing through coiled tubing with electric line installed offers the possibility of real time downhole pressure monitoring during the treatment. While it is unlikely that this system would be commercially viable for work in southeastern Alberta, it may be suitable for specific operations. The reduction in flow area and erosion of the electric line may prove to be limiting factors. Conclusions 1. Fracturing through coiled tubing has shown remarkable progress over recent years. It is now a proven technology and can be a cost-effective solution to specific customer needs. 2. Further work is required to enable a more accurate prediction of erosion on the coiled tubing string. 3. The type of fracturing fluid used affects the erosion rate of the coiled tubing. 4. New developments in both isolation tool design and fracturing fluid technology will increase the number of potential wells that can be treated with this technique. 5. Local regulatory requirements may inhibit the geographical transfer of fracturing through coiled tubing technology. 7. Pipe management is critical to the safety of the operation. 8. When considering Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing the entire well construction plan needs to be thoroughly evaluated. Completion, cementing and perforating practices can have considerable impact on the operation. If all zones cannot be fractured then the financial justification of the project may be compromised. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Nowsco-Fracmaster/B.J. Services Ltd for their support and permission to publish this paper. Thanks to Rodney B. Muth of Nowsco-Fracmaster for his input on/ critique of the fracturing sections and to Alex Crabtree of B.J. Services for his critique and consistent support. References
1. Canadian Chapter of the International Coiled Tubing Association, Workshop on Coiled Tubing Fracturing, 13 October, 1999, Calgary, Alberta. 2. McMehan R and Crombie D, Drilling, Completing and Fracturing a Gas Well with Coiled Tubing, presented at Gulf Publishing/World Oil 2nd International Conference and Exhibition on Coiled Tubing Technology: Operations, Services, Practices, held in Houston Texas, March 29-31, 1994. 3. Lemp S, Zemlak W and McCollum R, An Economical ShallowGas Fracturing Technique Utilizing a Coiled Tubing Conduit, SPE 46031, presented at the 1998 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable held in Houston, Texas 15-16 April, 1998.

New developments Developments are under way to address some of the limitations of the current technology in coiled tubing fracturing. The first of these is the requirement to deploy and retrieve the bottom hole assembly for straddles over 5.5 metres in length. While this is a relatively straightforward task it is time consuming and limits the quantity of jobs performed per day. A tool has been developed and tested that will allow the straddle length to be varied as required without the need to pressure deploy. This tool has a lower fixed cup with a circulation sub. The upper cup is clamped onto the coiled tubing at the appropriate straddle length. The well is isolated by means of pipe rams or an annular BOP during the clamping process . As of December 1999 this tool has been tested to 40 MPa and is awaiting its first field trial. A shear sub is built into the system in the event that the tool becomes stuck in hole. The second development is in the fracturing fluid system used. Injection pressures can be very high during coiled tubing fracturing and this limits the application of the technology to large OD coiled tubing and shallow wells. It is not always possible to tailor the length of the coiled tubing on the reel to the well that is to be treated. Thus frequent spooling and/or cutting of the pipe is required. This is time consuming and adds additional expense to the operation. The pipe is subject to very high pressures and thus welding is to be avoided. It is possible to have a number of different lengths of string available but the inventory costs and the costs associated with spooling, etc are prohibitive in Western Canada. A new surfactant based fracturing fluid was developed in 1998 for general fracturing purposes. The reduced friction characteristics of this fluid will allow smaller OD coiled tubing and/or higher rates to be used. Thus the range of potential wells for this technique will be significantly increased. At present Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing is limited to through casing or monobore wells. Studies are

W.G. GAVIN

SPE 60690

4. McClaury BS, Wang J, Shirazi SA, Shadley JR and Rybicki EF, Solid Particle Erosion in Long Radius Elbows and Straight Pipes, SPE 38842, presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas 5-8 October, 1997. 5. Berkenpas PG, The Milk River Shallow Gas Pool: Role of the Updip Water Trap and Connate Water in Gas Production From the Pool, SPE 22922, presented at the 66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in Dallas, Texas 6-9 October, 1991. 6. Roco MC, Nair P, Addie GR and Dennis J, Erosion of Concentrated Slurries in Turbulent Flow, Journal of Pipelines, 4 (1984) 213-221.

SPE 60690

FRACTURING THROUGH COILED TUBING - RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND CASE HISTORIES

FRAC GRADIENTS
30.0 28.0 26.0 24.0 Frac Gradient (kPa/m) 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 0 25 50 75 100 Job Number 125 150 175 200

Figure 1 : Fracture gradients (broken line represents 22.6 kPa/metre)

Figure 4 : Accelerated erosion of coiled tubing on reel

FRICTION GRADIENTS (with sand) 60.3 mm tubing

100.0 Cross-linked water based frac fluids - excluding values close to screen out

FRICTION GRADIENT (kPa/m) 10.0 1.00 RATE (m3/min)

10.00

Figure 2 : Friction Pressure Gradients With Sand

FRICTION GRADIENTS (without sand) 60.3 mm tubing

100.0 Cross-linked water based frac fluids - excluding values close to screen out

FRICTION GRADIENT (kPa/m) 10.0 1.00 RATE (m3/min) 10.00

Figure 5 : Erosion of associated treating iron

Figure 3 : Friction Pressure Gradients Without Sand