/@@m

OTC 7891
New Tool Designs For High Rate Gravel Pack Operations
Colby M. Ross, P.E., HalliburtonEnergyServices

Copyright 1995, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 27th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, U. S.A.,1-4 May 1995.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of information contained In an abstract eubmilted by the author(s). Contents of the peper,
es presented, heve not been reviewed by the Offehore Technology Conference and are subject to cerrect[on by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
eny position of the Offshore Technology Conference or ite officers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be cepied. The abstract
should centaln censplcuous acknowledgment of where end by whom the paper is presented.

ABSTRACT

Fracturing of the wellbore to improve hydrocarbon

recovery has been a universally accepted practice in
the oilfield. The fracturing procedures reduce skin by
breaking through or bypassing near wellbore damage
that inhibits production. In loosely consolidated
formations, a propped fracture can reduoe fluid velocity
in the near wellbore region, which subsequently reduces
fines migration that can plug the wellbore. Fracturing
also provides highly conductive paths for gas and oil
production.
Gravel packing is another operation that is often needed
during a wells productive cycle. When a highlyconductive fracture is created before a gravel packing
operation is run, it has been found that well productivity
increases. Performing the operations separately,
however, dimishes the productivity gains because of
formation damage that can occur between completion
operations.
A method of gravel packing that includes a tip-screenout-design fracturing procedure, performed with the
gravel pack packer, screen, and blank in the hole, was
proposed to allow the procedures to be performed
simultaneously. This paper will describe the various

types of gravel packing tools that are currently in use,

their specific application, and a new series of gravel
packing tools that was developed to resolve the
difficulties that arose when the operations of fracturing
and gravel packing were mmbined. Also discussed is
the need that arose for tools that could sustain high flow
rates in small casing diameters.
Test results will be used to provide acceptable flow
rates for different bore sizes.
lNTR0Dum10t4

Many fracturing operations require fluids to be pumped

into the fractures at very high rates and high pressures,
followed by a proppant such as sand to hold the fracture
open as soon as the pump is stopped or the fluid leaks
off into the formation. Because the proppant-laden
fluids are very erosive and fracture pressures exceed
normal gravel pack and formation operating pressures,
specialized completion equipment is required to help
prevent tool damage from occurring on the surface or
downhole.
Gravel packing is typically performed at rates of.5 to 5
bbl/min. The perforation tunnels and the screen annulus
can be tightly packed with sand at these rates. If the
rates and pressures are increased, a small fracture can

bo croatodtobypassnearwdlboro damagoboforo thLJ

l?eferencas
andillustrations
atendofpaper.
217

NEWTOOLDESIGNS
FORHIGHRATEGRAVELPACKOPERATIONS

perforation tunnels and screen annulus are packed with

sand. When this operation takes place, productivity
increases can be obtained. If the fracturing operation is
completed before the gravel pack operation is
performed, however, some of the productivity gains can
be reduced as a result of formation damage that occurs
between the time when the stimulation packer is pulled
from the well and the gravel pack packer/screen
assembly is made up and run. This damage can result
from such conditions as addition of fluid loss additives,
which are regularly needed during these operations,
fluid incompatibilities with the formation, casing scale,
and contamination from solids in the completion fluid.
The combined gravel packing and small fracturing
procedure (frac pack) offered a viable solution to the
problems of formation damage that occurred when the
operations were run separately.
In addition, the
reduction in the number of trips into the wellbore
reduces operational time and costs.
Since higher flow rates were required to create the
fracture in this operation, increased demands were
placed on the gravel packing tools. The most severe
problem that occurred was the erosion that was
experienced from the increased fluid velocities. This
became critical when the packer bore and service tool
IDs were reduced to accommodate small casing.
Gravel packing tools have now been developed to
address the problems associated with the high-flow-rate
gravel packs or frac packs.2
Operational strategies have undergone many changes
within the last few years to keep abreast of the
changing needs in the industry. Economic constraints
have stimulated development of new, more cost
effective operational techniques, and in response to this
need, gravel packing methods have also undergone
change. The new gravel packing procedures have
required modifications to service tools and development
of new gravel packing tool support systems. Many
enhancements have also been made to traditional tools.
The capabilities and limitations of the various gravel
packing systems that have current application today will
be discussed as well as a new series of tools that was
developed for use in high flow rates with casing sizes of
less than seven inches.

218

OTC 7891

CONVENTIONALTOOLSYSTEMS

A number of tool systems have been used to gravel

pack wells, and these have performed satisfacto~ly for
many years. in traditional gravel pack operations,
pumping rates have typically been less than 5 bbl/min,
and typical job proppant volume is 2,000 to 2,500 Ibm.
Jobs rarely exceeded 15,000 Ibm. Fluid velodty at
these lower rates and volumes did not normally cause
severe erosion of the tools, and when rare cases of
erosion did occur, it was usually on tools that were used
for small casing sizes or those with small slurry exit
ports. Even in these cases, however, affected tools
could still be used under normal job conditions a
number of times before parts needed replacement.
Corrosion rather than erosion damage was the primary
reason for replacement of tool components (Figure 1).
Perforation cleanliness gained importance as damage
and skin limited the success of the conventional gravel
pack completion. Important in job success were fluid
filtration, pickling of the pipe, reduction in fluid loss
during tubing trips, elimination of paint from completion
equipment, prudent use of pipe dope and planned
reductions in formation exposure. To address trip time
and damage concerns, single-trip perforate-and-pack
systems as well as washdown and fluid-loss systems
were employed.3
When jobs were attempted with higher pumping rates,
conventional gravel packing tools performed with some
success. However, as larger volumes were pumped,
and frac packing was introduced to eliminate skin, the
erosional flow limits of the tools were reached. Tool
design changes were made to address the problem of
back pressure and to reduce erosion. Improvements
such as elongated crossover flow ports and increased
flow sub exit ports provided flow areas suffidently large
to eliminate erosion of the tools on all but the largest
volume jobs.
Several other factors needed to be considered. The
final gravel packing pressure applied at the end of a
conventional job to bump the pack and cause the
carrier fluid to be squeezed from the sand slurry was
limited to the amount of pressure necessary to ensure
a tight pack and limit voids. Care was taken to avoid
over pressuring the formation. An applied pressure in
the range of 1,000 to 1,500 psi above the circulate
pressure was an established pressure limit, depending

OTC 7891

COLBYM. Ross

upon formation characteristics. As pumping rates

increased, the capability to shut down the rob and
control the final pressure downhole decreased. When
sandout on a screen occurred, it progressed very
rapidly, causing high pressure spikes, and in some
cases, damage to the downhole tools.
Conventional tool systems were simply not designed to
withstand the higher pressures being encountered, and
therefore, if new operating requirements were to be
achieved, modifications to existing tool systems or new
tool designs were needed.

possible, material meeting API PI 10 specifications

was used.
High strength materials were recommended for seal
units and other select service tool components.
Use of pressure relief valves on the surface
pumping equipment.

Where short sections of blank are used below the

packer, however, collapse resistance of the screen
continues to be a concern.
WEIGHTDOWNMULTI-POSITION
SYSTEMS

MULTI-POSITION
TOOLSYSTEIIAS

As the problems of erosion and pressure were resolved,

tool position (motion) became a concern. The
combination of high rates and high pressures caused
problems with conventional-position indicating devices.
The higher pressures and flow rates mntributed to
larger tubing forces (movement) than had been
experienced in conventional gravel pack operations.
Ballooning increased as pressure increased, thermal
effects increased because of the higher rates, and an
increased piston effect was created when the annular
preventer was used to close off and monitor pressure.

The limitations experienced in traditional systems have

been addressed with enhancements and other types of
systems. With design improvements, most of the
erosional flow problems experienced with the
conventional systems have been eliminated. Jobs are
being successfully run at rates up to 23 bbl/min in 7inch and 9-5/8-inch casing sizes. Several of the design
changes that were made to address corrosion follow:
Crossover flow ports have been enlarged. (Figure 2)

Most of the jobs required the capability to monitor the

inner screen pressure during the job. To do this, the tool
was put in the circulate position, and the annular
preventer was closed at the surface. Thus, the pressure
could be monitored through the surface annulus
pressure or with downhole pressure gauges placed
above the service tool. However, moving the tool to the
circulate position prevented control of the alignment of
the crossover and flow sub ports. One option
considered as a possible solution was placement of the
gauges in the lower end of the service tool. This did not
allow the internal screen Pressure to be monitored from
the surface but did allow post job analysis of the frac
pack operation.

Secondary ball seats have been increased in

diameter or eliminated.
Primary ball seats have been eliminated (setting ball
was reversed).
The number and size of flow sub ports have been
increased to address the erosion problems. (Figure
2)

Packers with the largest possible bore sizes were

used to provide room for the service tool.
Problems resulting from high pressure sandout were
addressed through the use of high-yield-strength
materials as well as better control of pump pressure as
follows:

Weight-down systems were introduced to allow fluid

circulation with the multi-position tool in a weight-down
condition and to eliminate the need to pick up to another
position (Figure 3).4 This method has been very
successful for new completions, completions with no
upper perforations or liner tops, and where casing
pressure is not a limitation. If upper perforations exist,
pressure monitoring becomes inaccurate, and the
annular preventer may have to be opened prematurely

Pup joints used between the screen and flow sub

were manufactured from materials of 80,000 psi or
higher minimum yield strength materials to improve
the collapse resistance during sandout. Where

219

NEWTmL DESIGNS
FORHIGHRATEGRAVELPACK
OPERATIONS

OTC 7891

to prevent excessive pressure on the casing or upper

zone. In these cases, the fracturing operation can
abruptly terminate since the return flow from an opened
valve at the surface may cause premature packing
around the gravel pack screen (screenout) and end the
job. Despite these limitations, the weight-down tool
system has proven to be very reliable.

This new design combined the options of weight-down

gravel packing with a new crossover design that
provides return flow through a special crossover
attached to the packer. By making the crossover
mandrel part of the flow sub assembly below the
packer, the available bore of the packer would be more
serviceable for gravel slurry flow (Figure 4).

One problem with the weight-down system is that there

are no seals in the packer bore above the circulate
ports of the service tool. Without these seals, a reverse
ball check is required to prevent uncontrolled loss of
annulus fluid. The presence of a ball check prevents
monitoring of leakoff rates once the bali goes on seat.

This change made the system particularly useful for

small casing (5-inch and 5 1/2-inch) and packer bore
sizes (2.75-inch and 2.55-inch) where small diameters
limit the sand slurry injection rate or increase fluid
velocities to the point at which rapid erosion of the tools
occurs. This concept could also be applied to larger
sizes, but because available tools have been able to
handle the rates currently required, only the small
casing sizes were considered. As a means of
comparison, a velocity of 120 feet per second is
considered severe in straight pipe. if restrictions or flow
redirection is introduced, substantial erosion will occur
weii below this velocity.

A special, activated reverse ball check that allows

unobstructed flow through the tool in both directions
during the gravel pack portion of the job but still
provides a check valve to stop fluid loss to the formation
during the reversing operation was designed. The ball
check is activated by raising the tool to the reverse
position and applying an over pull after the gravel pack
has been run. This shears a sleeve to actuate the ball
check. This design provides the features of well control
and job monitoring that were needed.
Large, high-rate frac pack jobs that limited the work to
large casing sizes were initially envisioned. However,
several operators were interested in being abie to frac
pack in small casing sizes. Initial tests were run to
prove the reliability of the improved multi-position tools
in 5-inch and 5 l/2-inch casing. The results of these
tests showed that the tools would be reliable up to a
maximum rate of 8 bbl/min. At higher rates, it appeared
that erosion would be excessive and would restrict job
volume.

MODIFICATIONS
Most small-size-casing gravel pack tools currently in
use require redesign to sustain higher flow rates. The
newly designed frac pack setting and service tools
incorporated the following modifications:
[ce Tool
Removal of the seals that normally seal in the
packer bore to allow return flow.
Replacement of the seal mandrels with a smaller
OD service tool mandrel.
Replacement of the concentric tube crossover with
a single tube ported flow sub that has elongated
flow slots (Figure 4).

FRACPACKTOOLSFOR SMALL-DIAMETER
CASING
At times, drilling problems can compromise the use of
7-inch or larger casing, and smaller casing must be
used. The operational limits of the available gravel pack
tool systems were particularly restrictive when small
size tubulars were considered . For example, the
maximum rate limitation of 8 bbl/min was insufficient for
some completions. The need to find solutions for the
problems relating to casing sizes of less than 7 inches
motivated further investigation, which resulted in the
conception of the newest improvement to gravel
packing tool technology.

Elimination of the internal fiow tube.

External seals were respaced to locate and seal in
a new flow sub crossover mandrei.

I
These changes provided an increased through bore and
increased exit port slot areas.

220

OTC 7891

COLBYM. Ross

A gravel pack packer with only those modifications that

are required for weightdown systems can be used. This
type packer differs from a standard packer by the
addition of slots in the top sub and setting sleeve.
These slots allow flow to bypass around the locator
while the service tool mandrel is in the weight-down
condition.
TABLE 1 FLOW VELOCITIES

200

similar to a conventional service tool crossover. Fluid

that returns from the screen annulus passes through the
concentric tube of the crossover flow sub and exits to
the upper annulus above the packer by way of the
packer mandrel/service tool annulus. Figures 3 and 4
show the tool design.
Table 1 shows a plot of the flow velocities as a function
of pumping rate for both the multi-position tool and the
frac pack tools used in 5-inch and 5 l/2-inch casing
sizes. In addition flow velocities were plotted for 2-3/8and 2-7/8 lF-rate drill pipe as a reference. It should be
noted that this increase in injection flow rate was
achieved while maintaining the return flow area found
on conventional tools.
As can be seen from the chart, an approximate 50percent reduction in flow velocity has been achieved,
which allows larger jobs to be pumped at higher rates
than was possible with previous tools. Flow areas are
now more comparable to drill pipe flow areas.

175

150

The simplified formula used for calculation of fluid

velocity is:

~25

Velocity (f/see) =

:
G
g 100
>

Rate (bbl/min) X 13.475

Flow Area (in)

or
Velocity (f/see)=

75

Rate (bbl/min) X 17.157

Diameter (in)2

50

TESTING
A series of tests were run on both the standard 5-inch

25

and 5 l/2-inch tools and the newly designed frac pack

tools. A test loop was assembled to circulate both water
and a sand-laden gelled slurry through the crossovers
at up to 20 bbls/min. Each crossover was subjected to
a simulated job that was performed in 150 bbl stages in
a manner similar to stages seen in a typical job.
Measurements were taken on the crossover mandrel to
determine the amount of erosion that was occurring.

15

w sub Ass@
l~e flow sub below the packer is considerably different
in design. The traditional flow sub flow ports were
replaced with a crossover mandrel. The mandrel
provides slurry exit ports and a return flow bypass

Two stages were pumped for each tool tested. The first
with water and the second with a gelled sand slurry of
approximately 15 Ibm/gal. Stages were performed as

follows:
221

NEWTOOLDESIGNS
FORHIGHRATEGRAVELPACKOPERATIONS

OTC 7891

volumes could be pumped if the maximum continuous

pump rate could be reduced.

TABLE 2
Water Stage
Rate (bbl/min)

Initial study of the test data provided a more precise

means of determining maximum rates and volumes. An
erosion curve has been constructed for each tool tested
and can be used to provide maximum erosional limits.
Because the erosion occurs exponentially with rate, this
method should prove far more useful for large jobs. To
further explain this point, if the erosion rate for a tool
occurred as a function of the square of the velocity or
pump rate, an increase from 10 to 15 bpmbbl/min, a
50% increase in flow rate would increase erosion as
follows:

VOI(bbls)

Total Volume = 200 Barrelsof Water

TABLE 3

erosion rate @15 bbl/min ~ (15)2

- 225%
erosion rate @10 bbl/min
(10)2

Sand Stage
Rate (bbl/min)

VOI(bbls)

150

10

150

15

150

al

By knowing the erosion constant for a particular tool,

better job planning will result.
Even with better tool data, close job supervision in
offshore jobs is essential and is the key to success
because of the high rates, small volumes, and quick
pressure response.

X!iQ

Total Volume = 600 Barrels of Slurry

The tool system has been submitted for field trials. Up

to the date of writing this paper, only one job has been
completed, and this is discussed below.

Sand Concentration Averaged 15 Ibm/gal

Total Sand Volume = 225,000 Ibm
Total Fluid Volume = 800 bbl
Some distortion of the results occurred on the first test
because of the small size of the test loop and the close
proximity of the pumps to the crossover mandrel. This
test provided better results than subsequent tests since
erosion was broadly distributed rather than highly
focused. A typical erosion pattern for the service tool
exit ports consists of a rounding or teardrop shape in
the lower third of the slot. The ball and seat were
removed on subsequent tests to eliminate the oscillation
across the ports so that what is considered more
realistic results could be considered. As expected, the
characteristic erosion patterns returned in the
subsequent tests.
Based upon initial review of these tests, the new 5-inch
and 5-1/2-inch tools were rated for safe use at 15
bbl/min, total sand volumes of 75,000 Ibm and slurry
concentrations to 16 Ibm/gal. It was felt that higher

222

CASEHISTORY
A gulf coast operator who had been involved in the
initial request for a high rate tool in 5-1/2-inch casing
ran the initial job. Previous jobs run by this operator had
been done with conventional tools at lower rates or as
standard fracturing operations, followed by prepacks. In
the latter case, the additional trip required for fracturing
was not cost effective. The zone of interest ran from
8,210 to 8,267 feet. The screen, flow sub, packer and
service tool assembly was run and set. Normal
preparation of the work string was performed, followed
by an initial pad of 72 barrels of 10% HCI followed by 59
barrels of gel. This was pumped ahead of the proppant
slurry.
During the gravel pack operation, a total of 6,700 Ibm of
ceramic frac beads were pumped around the screen
and into the formation. The annular capacity of the

OTC 7891

COLBYM. Ross

screen casing annulus was calculated to be 900 Ibm.

This left roughly 5,800 Ibm of proppant out in the
formation and perforation tunnels. This is roughly three
times the amount of sand used in a conventional gravel
pack job but would be considered very small in
comparison to tool capabilities. In a typical prepack,
total proppant volume is typically 25 to 30 Ibm of
proppant per foot of perforations. G

ACLNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank the management of
Halliburton Energy Services for their support in
development of these tools and particularly J.D.
Hendrickson for his help, both in testing the tools and in
coordinating this paper.
REFERENCES:

Following sandout of the screen, the remaining slurry

was reversed, and the tool was raised to come out of
the hole. An excessive amount of fluid loss was
immediately experienced. To bring fluid loss under
control, a salt pill was pumped around the service tool
and into the screen. Due to problems created by the salt
pill, the well had to be worked over. An inspection of
the gravel pack tools was performed following the
removal of the service tool and packer/flow sub
assembly. There was no detected damage from the
pumping operation. Both the service tool and flow sub
assembly were in good condition. The customer was
pleased with the operation of the tools since all
operations completed before the salt pill was pumped
had been successful.

1.

BeBlanc, Leonard: Fracture Packing, Resin

Injection Lead Developments in Completions,
CMs/?ore,(January, 1984) pp 55-58.

2. Meese, C.A., Mullen, M. E., and Baree,

R. D.:
Offshore Hydraulic Fracturing Technique, JPT,

(March 1994) pp 226-238.

D.M.,
and
Young,
Keith:
3. Ross,
Provides
Expendable/Releasable
Washpipe
Opportunity For Improved Gravel-Pack Operations,
Paper OTC No. 7346 presented at the 25th Annual
OTC, Houston, Texas, 3-6 May 1993.
4. EchoIs, R.H., Thomas, P.T., Oncale , R., Fischer,
D., Hubble, T., and Park , D.: New Weight-Down
Gravel Pack Floater System - Case History SPE
Paper 26723, presented at Offshore Europe 93,710 September 1993, Aberdeen.

CONCLUSIONS:
In addition to the increased productivity that can be
realized from performance of the fracturing and gravel
packing operations simultaneously, the operator can
benefit from advantages such as 1) the elimination of
one trip into the well, 2) reduction of formation exposure
time, which minimizes fluid loss through the created
fractures, and 3) reduction of subsequent fluid-loss
cleanup time.

5. Fracpac Completion Services, Publication F3351,

Halliburton Energy Services, (1994).
6. Penberthy, W.L. Jr., and EchoIs, E.E.: Gravel
Placement in Wells, JPT, (July 1993) pp 612-674.

The new tools that are now available and the

information supplied in this paper have application in all
gravel pack well completions, and more specifically, in
wells where fracturing operations will provide additional
productivity increases that would be lost by subsequent
extended exposure to completion fluids while the screen
is run in place.

TRIC Conversion
bbl x
ftx
F
psi x
lbf X
lbm x
in X
ft3 x

As a result of this new tool technology and its control of

erosion problems in small casing sizes, frac packs can
now be successfully performed in small casing sizes
with high fluid velocities.

1.589873
.~8*
(F - 32)/1.8
6.894757
4.448222
5.535924

2.54*
2.831685

*Conversion factor is exact.

223

FACTORS

E+ 03 = mz
E-01
=m
= c
E + 00 = kPa
E+ (IO =N
E -01 = kg
E+ OO=cm
E- 02 = m3

GRAVEL PACK
SERVICE SEAL UNIT

GRAVEL PACK PACKER

CONVENTIONAL CROSSOVER

POSITIVE INDICATOR

WASH PIPE

PRODUCTION SCREEN

BRIDGE PLUG

Figure 1
Conventional Single Zone
Gravel Pack Assembly

224

ELONGATED
FLOW
PORTS

~~l.TRRY
PORTS

RETURN
FLOW

High -i?ate Gravei Pack

Ciosing Sieeve

Conventional Cross-Over
Weldment
Figure 2

225

-.
.
1
--E%

SERVICE TOOL

CROSSOVER
FLOW SUB

VIEW B
\

VIEW A

LOWER SEAL
BORE

POF

GRAVELPACK
PACKER

PACKER
BORE/SERVICETOOL
FLOW ANNULUS

RETURN FLOW
FROM SCREEN

SHEAR SUB

Fiaure 3
Circulation Paths torHigh Rate Frac Pack Tool
226

RETURN FLOW

SLURRY EXIT
PORTS

RETURN FLOW

High Rate Frac-Pack Flow

Sub-Assembly with
Crossover Mandrel
High Rate Frac-Pack
Service Tool
Figure 4
227