New Downhole Tool Can Solve Depth Control Problems in Coiled-Tubing Fracturing Operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Downhole Tool Can Solve Depth Control Problems in Coiled-Tubing Fracturing Operations M.L. Connell; M.L. Connell Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar R.G. Howard R.G. Howard Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, April 2002. Paper Number: SPE-74834-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/74834-MS Published: April 09 2002 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Connell, M.L., and R.G. Howard. "New Downhole Tool Can Solve Depth Control Problems in Coiled-Tubing Fracturing Operations." Paper presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, April 2002. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/74834-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE/ICoTA Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search AbstractCoiled-tubing fracturing (CTF) operations are proving to be a safe, cost-effective way to stimulate wells. But, the straddle packers attached to the end of the coiled tubing must be precisely placed over the intervals to be fractured or the stimulation can be compromised. A new tool has been developed to help ensure proper placement of the packers in the wellbore. A log of the casing collars is generated and then correlated to existing well logs. Once the depth corrections are made, fracturing operations can commence.IntroductionThe use of coiled tubing to fracture wells is a relatively new service that many operators are finding ideally suited for some candidate fields. To date, the number of wells that have been fractured by coiled tubing is estimated to exceed 5,000. Most of these wells have been fractured in the last three to four years, and over one-third were fractured in 2001.Like many other types of services performed with coiled tubing, the limiting factor for well stimulations has been the size and strength of the coiled tubing itself. As tubing has grown larger and more robust, the opportunities for using coiled tubing have expanded. Nowhere is this more evident than in coiled-tubing fracturing operations.As fatigue life and strength have improved for large-diameter coiled tubing over the last few years, the economics of fracturing wells with coiled tubing have also improved. Previously, the short life of large coiled tubing made such operations impractical. To pay for the coiled tubing, service companies would have had to charge an inordinate amount to recover costs.Fracturing through coiled tubing is especially well suited to shallow wells with multiple thin zones. 1 With coiled tubing, these wells can be fractured in a much shorter time than with conventional methods. Often, the fracturing job can be completed in one day using coiled tubing. In Canada, two wells have been fractured in one day using the same equipment and crew. This is possible because the coiled tubing can reposition the packers quickly from one zone to the next and can do this in an underbalanced condition. Conventional fracturing operations with jointed pipe on a rig require that the well be in an overbalanced state before moving the tools to the next job.CTF operations have been carried out in Canada for several years, and in fact, most of the wells stimulated using this process have been in Canada. However, CTF operations have now been performed in several areas of the United States, most notably in Colorado, Texas, Alabama, and Virginia. In the United Kingdom, CTF operations have been performed in England and Ireland. Virtually all of these jobs have been performed on shallow, multizone onshore wells.The techniques used in CTF are similar regardless of the field. A large diameter coiled-tubing string is needed to achieve sufficient flow rates to properly fracture the zones.2 Most coiled-tubing strings being used are 2 3/8- or 2 7/8-in. diameter. Most of the coiled-tubing units (CTU) have an integral mast or derrick that is used to support the injector head and the lubricator. A lubricator is used so that the tools can be retrieved from the well in an underbalanced condition.Most of the toolstrings being used for CTF operations consist of some type of straddle packer.Fig. 1shows one of the more successful bottomhole packer assembly (BHPA) designs. The BHPA has been designed specifically for CTF operations and has these features:Equalizing valve-Allows pressure equalization before the packer is released and moved to the next zoneLower slip design-Does not require rotation of the outer mandrel to release, making packer unsetting easierCup top packer-Allows reverse circulation while running inhole for washing debrisMultiset-Capable of being set, unset, and moved many times reliablyThe BHPA shown has been used successfully during CTF operations on thousands of wells. Currently, it is available in 4 1/2- and 5 1/2-in. sizes. Keywords: upstream oil & gas, solve depth control problem, new downhole tool, wccl, connell, spe 74834, nozzle port, ctf operation, wireline log, howard spe 74834 Subjects: Completion Installation and Operations, Coiled tubing operations This content is only available via PDF. 2002. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".