Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference held in College Station, Texas, U.S.A., 2931 January 2007.

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
Over 145 pin-point fracturing (PPF) treatments have been
performed in Australias Cooper Basin since the introduction
of the technology in mid 2004. The PPF method creates
perforations by pumping abrasive slurry down the coil tubing
through a jetting nozzle while the main treatment is then
pumped down the annulus around the coil tubing. Isolation
between fracture treatments is accomplished using sand plugs
(preferred method) or composite bridge plugs. Fracturing
treatments in the Cooper Basin have historically been
problematic due to the combination of high rock strengths
(average modulus of sand/shales of 4-5 million psi), proximity
to coal formations, high formation temperatures (250-400 deg
F), and high fracture gradients (often above 1.0 psi/ft). Screen-
outs occur in ~40% of all treatments, so useful experience has
been obtained on managing these events. This paper discusses
the successful and unsuccessful experiences that have
occurred using PPF techniques in these harsh situations. While
PPF has improved well performance, the placement of
treatments is still problematic. The paper details the
experiences with varying abrasive jetting and breakdown
techniques, modifying the bottom-hole assembly (BHA),
changing the isolation techniques, modifying the treatment
schedules, and extending PPF treatments to older wells.


Introduction
The Cooper Basin extends over 130,000 sq kms in the north
eastern corner of South Australia and the south western corner
of Queensland (see Figure 1). The basin is Australias largest
onshore producing area, currently producing 600 MMScf/day
from 700 gas wells and 2,500 bbl/day from 50 oil wells. The
basin is a Late Carboniferous to Middle Triassic, non-marine
sedimentary environment characterized as fluvio-lacustrine,
with fining upward sandstones, siltstones, interbedded shales
and coals
1-2
.


Figure 1 - Location of Cooper Basin

Hydraulic fracturing has been a critical technology in the
basin development over the last 40 years. To date, over 650
individual treatments have been performed. An extensive
review of the fracturing history within the basin is presented
by McGowen et al
3
. The fracturing environment within the
basin is very challenging from a number of perspectives. The
producing formations are between 7,500 ft and 10,000 ft, with
reservoir temperatures ranging from 250 to 400
o
F. Multiple
reservoir intervals are found interbedded with shales and
coals. Fracture gradients are between 0.6 and 1.4 psi/ft with
near wellbore pressure losses up to 3000 psi. The basin was
originally normally pressured with only a few isolated cases of
overpressure being recorded. Depletion effects from offset
well production are commonly observed in most new wells,
further complicating the ability to obtain adequate fracture
growth coverage. A typical well can have as much as 2,500 ft
of gross interval with many fracture targets interspaced
between numerous coals (see Figure 2). In this example, the
PPF stages are identified with black boxes. Track 1 shows
Gamma Ray, Track 2&3 shows the Calipers, Track 4 shows
resistivities with separation in yellow, Track 5 shows sonic
velocity, Track 6 shows gas and water effective pore volumes,
Track 7 shows lithologies, and Track 8 shows 4% and 8%
effective porosity pay flags.


SPE 106052
Pin-Point Fracturing (PPF) in Challenging Formations
K.J. Beatty, Santos Ltd.; J.M. McGowen, Halliburton; and J.V. Gilbert, Santos Ltd.
2 SPE 106052

OPEN HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
SONIC
US/F 140 40
CAIPER
IN 11 6
CALIPER
IN 6 11
8550
8600
8650
8700
8750
8800
8850
8900
8950
9000
9050
9100
9150
9200
9250
9300
9350
9400
9450
9500
D
E
P
T
H feet
RT
OHMM 0.2 2000
RS
OHMM 0.2 2000
WATER
V/V 0.3 0
GAS
V/V 0.3 0
SHALE
V/V 0 1
QUARTZ
V/V 0 1
1
COAL 0 1 4% PAY
6% PAY
T
i
r
r
a
w
a
r
r
a
P
a
t
c
h
a
w
a
r
r
a
T
o
o
l
a
c
h
e
e
OPEN HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
SONIC
US/F 140 40
CAIPER
IN 11 6
CALIPER
IN 6 11
8550
8600
8650
8700
8750
8800
8850
8900
8950
9000
9050
9100
9150
9200
9250
9300
9350
9400
9450
9500
D
E
P
T
H feet
RT
OHMM 0.2 2000
RS
OHMM 0.2 2000
WATER
V/V 0.3 0
GAS
V/V 0.3 0
SHALE
V/V 0 1
QUARTZ
V/V 0 1
1
COAL 0 1 4% PAY
6% PAY
T
i
r
r
a
w
a
r
r
a
P
a
t
c
h
a
w
a
r
r
a
T
o
o
l
a
c
h
e
e

Figure 2 Typical Log for Cooper Basin
Prior to the introduction of PPF, single treatments were
commonly performed through multiple perforated intervals
(hereafter termed blanket fracturing). Analysis of post-frac
production logging tests (PLT) suggest this technique does not
effectively stimulate multiple intervals, bypassing significant
reserves
3
. Figure 3 is provided an example of typical results
following blanket fracturing. The figure shows post-frac
production from only 3 of the 9 perforated intervals open
during the treatment, as shown by the red and black boxes.
Track 1 shows the open hole and cased hole Gamma Rays and
the Sonic time, Track 2&3 shows the Calipers, Track 4 shows
resistivities with separation in yellow, Track 5 shows gas and
water effective pore volumes, Track 6 shows lithologies, and
Track 8 shows the production log spinner and temperature
passes. The well was producing 3.5 MMscf/day during the
PLT.

SONIC
US/F 140 40
OPEN HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
CASE HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
CALIPER
IN 11 6
CALIPER
IN 6 11
P
E
R
F
O
R
A
T
IO
N
S
8000
8050
8100
8150
8200
8250
8300
8350
8400
D
E
P
T
H
m
e
tre
s
RS
OHMM 0.2 2000
RT
OHMM 0.2 2000
WATER
V/V 0.3 0
GAS
V/V 0.3 0
SHALE
V/V 0 1
QUARTZ
V/V 0 1
COAL
V/V 0 1
SPINNERS
RPS -10 110
TEMPERATURE
300 350 DEGF
SONIC
US/F 140 40
OPEN HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
CASE HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
CALIPER
IN 11 6
CALIPER
IN 6 11
P
E
R
F
O
R
A
T
IO
N
S
8000
8050
8100
8150
8200
8250
8300
8350
8400
D
E
P
T
H
m
e
tre
s
RS
OHMM 0.2 2000
RT
OHMM 0.2 2000
WATER
V/V 0.3 0
GAS
V/V 0.3 0
SHALE
V/V 0 1
QUARTZ
V/V 0 1
COAL
V/V 0 1
SPINNERS
RPS -10 110
TEMPERATURE
300 350 DEGF

Figure 3 Example of a Blanket Fracturing

With the increasing differential depletion noted in existing
wells, grouping more than one sand package in a fracture
treatment has become ineffective. In response PPF was
introduced in mid-2004 to effectively stimulate multiple
intervals in a wellbore quickly and economically. A detailed
discussion of the initial application of this technology in the
Cooper Basin is contained in a paper by Gilbert and
Greenstreet
4
. Similar experience has been observed in other
areas
5-6
, in which PPF technology has improved fracture
coverage and field performance. By controlling the initiation
point, the fracture height and length can be better predicted.
This in turn causes improved productively from each wellbore
through more effective stimulation of all target intervals
5
.
This is a follow-up paper to the initial implementation
discussed by Gilbert and Greenstreet, including updates on the
SPE 106052 3
implementation of this technology. It discusses the challenges
and developments made to optimise the process and adapt it to
our challenging conditions. Although the pumping technique
has not greatly departed from that outlined initially, some
significant improvements have been made over the last two
years particularly in the areas of isolation methods, tool
design, and job optimization.


Summary of PPF Treatments
Thirty wells have been completed using PPF technology since
its introduction in Mid-2004, comprising approximately 50%
of all the wells stimulated (see Figure 4) during this time
period. Figure 4 also displays the overall trend in Cooper
Basin development since 2000. For the full review of the
Cooper Basin fracturing activity, refer to McGowen ET al
2
.
PPF technology has been used in almost all instances when
more than 2 treatments have been performed per well and are
otherwise not economically justified when performing 1 or 2
fracs per well.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
#

F
r
a
c
e
d

W
e
l
l
s
PPF
Non-PPF

Figure 4 - History of Frac Wells

The trend of individual fracturing stages in presented in
Figure 5, while an overview of the statistics is presented in
Table 1. A total of 149 treatments have been completed in the
30 wells, giving an average of ~5 PPF treatments per well. A
total of 61 treatments were completed during 2004-2006 in the
36 Non-PPF wells, giving an average of ~2 fracs per well.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
#

F
r
a
c

S
t
a
g
e
s
PPF
Non-PPF

Figure 5 - History of Frac Stages


Table 1 also shows a comparison against the non pin-point
fractured wells (Non-PPF) during the time period from 2004-
2006. A comparison of the PPF vs. Non-PPF treatments
shows significantly smaller interval heights for the PPF
treatments (30 ft vs. 73 ft) and slightly smaller treatment sizes
(40k lbs vs. 64k lbs). Other parameters such as proppant
placement (percentage of design), screen-out frequency, and
near wellbore pressure loss (NWBPL) are similar in
magnitude between the PPF and Non-PPF treatments.

PPF Non-PPF
# Wells 30 36
# Fracs 149 61
% Placement 85% 84%
Avg Fluid (gals) 39964 45208
Avg Proppant (lbs) 48595 64449
% Screenouts 45% 38%
Avg Gross Ht (ft) 29.8 73.4
NWBPL (psi) 1291 1013

Table 1 - PPF & Non-PPF Treatments from 2004-2006

The frequency of proppant placement percentages during
2004-6 for the PPF and Non-PPF treatments is provided in
Figure 6. This figure shows that frequency of proppant
placement for PPF treatments is very similar to the Non-PPF
treatments when a majority (> 50%) of the designed proppant
is successfully placed into the formation. Over 90% of the PPF
treatments placed greater than 50% of the designed proppant
amount, as compared to 88% for the Non-PPF treatments. The
main difference in placement is observed when serious
placement problems occur. In the PPF treatments, the major
placement difficulty is the inability to breakdown the
formation in 6% of treatment attempts. In the Non-PPF
treatments, the major difficulties are either the canceling of
treatments due to insufficient permeability or excessive
fracture gradients, or a higher frequency of poor proppant
placement. The interpretation of this data is that similar
placement difficulty exists in both the PPF and Non-PPF
treatments. The poor placement in the Non-PPF treatments
and the poor breakdown efficiency in the PPF treatments are
likely caused be the same formation characteristics of high
stresses and low formation permeability.

1%
10%
100%
N
o

B
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
C
a
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
0
-
2
5
%
2
5
-
5
0
%
5
0
-
7
5
%
>
7
5
%
%

o
f

T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
PPF
Non-PPF

Figure 6 - Frequency Chart of Proppant Placement

4 SPE 106052
Further analyses of the proppant placement data for the
PPF & Non-PPF treatments are provided as Tables 2 & 3,
respectively. The average gross interval height, average
NWBPL, and average proppant amount are shown against the
proppant placement percentage. The PPF treatments show no
observable trend of placement percentage versus either the
gross interval height or NWBPL. The lack of trend with
NWPBL is surprising, as this is normally a dominant factor in
design. It is likely that more conservative designs have been
proposed for the high NWBPL cases. The Non-PPF treatments
show trends of increased proppant placement with smaller
gross interval thickness and decreased NWBPL. These trends
are more consistent with conventional design ideology.

PPF PPF PPF Proppant
Frequency Gross Ht NWBPL Placed
(ft) (psi) (lbs)
No Breakdown 6.0% 26
Cancelled 1.3% 25
0-25% 1.3% 31 1548 11497
25-50% 10.7% 26 1494 24077
50-75% 13.4% 30 2026 35103
>75% 67.1% 30 1112 55958

Table 2 - Sorting of Proppant Placement for PPF
Treatments


Non-PPF Non-PPF Non-PPF Proppant
Frequency Gross Ht NWBPL Placed
(ft) (psi) (lbs)
No Breakdown 0.0%
Cancelled 4.9% 167 1658
0-25% 6.6% 111 2466 6642
25-50% 8.2% 96 2032 28338
50-75% 8.2% 75 1023 72812
>75% 72.1% 67 534 72858

Table 3 - Sorting of Proppant Placement for Non-PPF
Treatments

Post-frac production results from the PPF and Non-PPF
wells are presented as Figures 7 and 8. Figure 7 shows the
average post-frac production rate on a yearly basis from 2000
to 2006. This post-frac rate is determined after the well has
been cleaned up and produced in-line for at least 1 month after
running production tubing (typically 2
3
/
8
for the PPF wells).
The Non-PPF wells have produced at a post-frac rate of ~2-4
MMscf/day (on average), while the PPF wells are producing at
a rate of ~5-6 MMsf/day. The only exception is the 2004 Non-
PPF value of ~6 MMscf/day which was due to two exceptional
producers in this low activity year.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

W
e
l
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
M
M
s
c
f
/
d
a
y
)
PPF
Non-PPF

Figure 7 - Average Production Response

The recoverable reserves estimates presented in Figure 8
are approximations due to present limited production history
from many of the PPF wells. Non-PPF experience has
indicated recoverable reserves per well ranging from 2-6 bcf,
with high variability. Although uncertain at this time, the
recoverable reserves of the PPF wells are predicted to range
from 4-8 bcf, with similar variability. It is hopeful that the PPF
predictions are conservative and that larger reserves will be
observed due to continued performance of the lower
permeability intervals.

0
2
4
6
8
10
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

p
e
r

W
e
l
l

(
B
c
f
)
PPF
Non-PPF

Figure 8 - Average Estimated Recovery

The higher production rates of the PPF wells as compared
to the Non-PPF wells has been better than originally expected
based on the increased number of fractures (2 fracs/well for
the Non-PPF wells vs. 5 fracs/well for the PPF wells). Original
expectation was based on the belief that Non-PPF wells were
stimulating the best reservoir quality, thus the additional fracs
would only be accessing marginal reservoir quality. Actual
results are indicating that performance of the additional
fracture treatments are only slightly less productive (on
average) than the previously selective intervals. This better
performance is mostly explained by the difficulty in predicting
post-frac performance in low permeability formations.


Job Execution and Design
Following the initial eight wells
2
slight procedure
modifications have been trialled to optimize PPF operations.
This has built a strong database of information which has lead
SPE 106052 5
to the process utilized today. The present PPF procedure
sequence for each zone - including the jetting, formation break
down, main treatment stimulation and isolation pressure test -
is outlined below.

1. Run coiled tubing (coil) and correlate on depth using
marker joints and collars for the first frac target.
2. Pump down coil a 1 lb/gal 20/40 sand slurry and
displace to provide at least 10 minutes of abrasive
jetting to cut perforations.
3. Pump down coil a volume of 15% HCL and displace
leaving acid spotted partially into the annulus.
4. While maintaining the coil rate, shut in the annulus
and squeeze the remaining acid into the formation
until breakdown is achieved.
5. Once breakdown is observed, begin injection down the
annulus to desired treatment rate. Simultaneously
reduce the coil rate to a minimum to provide a
deadstring and maintain a positive pressure during
injection.
6. Complete diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT),
displacing all remaining acid and cutting sand into the
formation. Perform step-down test at the end of the
injection to evaluate the near wellbore pressure loss
(NWBPL).
7. Monitor decline to determine the closure stress,
leakoff behaviour, reservoir pressure and formation
permeability, if cycle times permit.
8. Pull coil up to next jetting depth and pump the main
treatment. Continue breaker but drop crosslinkers and
commence a 6-10 lb/gal proppant ramp.
9. Drop breaker and completely flush with linear gel,
dropping rate to induce a screenout as the final
proppant ramp reaches formation.
10. Should a screenout occur, reverse out excess proppant
with the coil still at the next cutting depth. If a
screenout does not occur, the final flush includes a
slight under-displacement to provide a sand plug.
11. Pressure test sand plug to 10,000 psi. Should test fail
reverse down and spot a secondary sand plug for
isolation. Note: if plug fails a second time the
wellbore is cleaned out and a mechanical plug set.
12. Once isolation of lower zones is achieved the process
is repeated.


. Figures 9 and 10 graphically show the pressure, rate, and
slurry concentration during these cycles. All PPF treatments
have been performed using 20/40 light weight ceramic,
intermediate strength, or bauxite proppants. A tail-in of 16/30
proppant is performed on roughly 50% of treatments. Typical
post screenout reversing pressures are shown in Figure 11.
To discuss the improvements in job execution and design,
this section will be divided into isolation methodologies, job
procedure improvements, evaluating flow convergence,
treating multiple intervals, combating high stress, and
completion designs.

0 60 120 180 240 300
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
A
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
B
0
2
4
6
8
10
C
Treating Annulus Pressure (psi) Slurry Rate (bpm)
BH Proppant Conc (lb/gal) Surf Coil Slurry Conc (lb/gal)
A B
C C
StimWin v4.8.0
03-Dec-06 09:39
Main (s/ out) Reversing P-test J et & Acid Mini & Decline
Pin Point Operational Activity
Time (Min) 0 60 120 180 240 300
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
A
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
B
0
2
4
6
8
10
C
Treating Annulus Pressure (psi) Slurry Rate (bpm)
BH Proppant Conc (lb/gal) Surf Coil Slurry Conc (lb/gal)
A B
C C
StimWin v4.8.0
03-Dec-06 09:39
Main (s/ out) Reversing P-test J et & Acid Mini & Decline
Pin Point Operational Activity
0 60 120 180 240 300
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
A
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
B
0
2
4
6
8
10
C
Treating Annulus Pressure (psi) Slurry Rate (bpm)
BH Proppant Conc (lb/gal) Surf Coil Slurry Conc (lb/gal)
A B
C C
StimWin v4.8.0
03-Dec-06 09:39
Main (s/ out) Reversing P-test J et & Acid Mini & Decline
Pin Point Operational Activity
Main (s/ out) Reversing P-test J et & Acid Mini & Decline
Pin Point Operational Activity
Time (Min)

Figure 9 Example of PPF Pumping Cycle (0-5hours)

300 360 420 480 540 600
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
A
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
B
0
2
4
6
8
10
C
Treating Annulus Pressure (psi) Slurry Rate (bpm)
BH Proppant Conc (lb/gal) Surf Coil Slurry Conc (lb/gal)
A B
C C
StimWin v4.8.0
03-Dec-06 09:53Decline Correlate P-test J et & Acid Mini & Decline Main Frac (100%)
Pin Point Operational Activity
Time (Min) 300 360 420 480 540 600
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
A
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
B
0
2
4
6
8
10
C
Treating Annulus Pressure (psi) Slurry Rate (bpm)
BH Proppant Conc (lb/gal) Surf Coil Slurry Conc (lb/gal)
A B
C C
StimWin v4.8.0
03-Dec-06 09:53Decline Correlate P-test J et & Acid Mini & Decline Main Frac (100%)
Pin Point Operational Activity
Decline Correlate P-test J et & Acid Mini & Decline Main Frac (100%)
Pin Point Operational Activity
Time (Min)

Figure 10 - Example of PPF Pumping Cycle (5-10hours)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
A
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
B
Coil Tubing Pressure (psi) Treating Annulus Pressure (psi)
Reversing Rate (bpm)
A A
B
StimWin v4.8.0
03-Dec-06 10:11
Figure 11 - Typical Reversing Times and Pressures Post-
Screen-Out


Isolation Methodologies. Sand or Proppant plugs are the
current and primary method of isolation between PPF
treatments. Procedures for placing the proppant plugs have
undergone two significant changes to attempt to speed up
operations between intervals. The initial procedure was to pull
the coil up 20 ft after performing the minifrac, reverse out any
proppant left in the wellbore after the main treatment, then
6 SPE 106052
pump a sand plug volume to the bottom of the coil, pull up the
coil through the sand slurry, wait 1 hour for the sand to settle,
and then tag the sand plug. If the sand plug was tagged, then a
pressure test to 10,000 psi surface pressure was performed to
verify sand plug integrity. If the sand plug was not tagged,
then an additional sand plug was pumped using the same
procedure. This scheduled sand plug procedure (SSPP) was
used for 98 PPF stages. The major drawback of this procedure
was the additional time required for the sand plug pumping
operation, as it was very common to pump multiple sand
plugs.
To improve efficiency, the SSPP was discontinued and the
sand plug was placed using an under-displacing procedure
(UDP) on the main treatment. In the UDP, the coil was pulled
up after the minifrac to a sufficient depth to provide the
proppant amount to provide the fill required for the proppant
plug (normally 100-300 ft above the jetted perforations). After
the main treatment, the wellbore was reversed to remove
excess proppant, the proppant below the coil was then allowed
to settle for 1 hour, and then the coil was used to tag the
proppant plug. If the proppant plug was successfully tagged
then a pressure test of the plug would be performed. If the
proppant plug could not be tagged, then an additional sand
plug would be reversed similar to the initial procedure
described previously. Success rates for the UDP showed the
need to perform additional sand plugs in 25% of stages.
Additionally, a larger problem was sometimes encountered
when the sand plug was tagged too high. Because of the ball
sub on the BHA, it is only possible to reverse the excess
proppant from the wellbore while normal operations are to
circulate fill. On numerous occasions, the inability to reverse
out excess proppant required the tripping and use of
conventional cleanout nozzles, with subsequent tripping again
with the PPF BHA. This problem with reversing excess
proppant made the use of the UDP method problematic. This
process was utilized for 15 treatments.
Due to the problems described above for the UDP, the
sand plug procedure was again modified to reduce job time
between PPF treatments. This latest method attempts to
screen-out the main fracturing treatment while having the
BHA located at the next stage location and is termed the
Induced Screen-Out Procedure (ISOP). A key component of
the ISOP is a steep proppant ramp during the end of the job to
induce a screen-out and force a bridge at the perforations. The
ISOP has now been used for 17 treatments with inconsistent
results. Even with rate decreases during the end of the
treatment, forcing a screen-out has not been achieved. Luckily,
screen-out frequency is still high (45%) so obtaining isolation
has been obtained in most of these instances without need of a
subsequent sand plug stage. In cases that a screenout is not
achieved, the main treatment is under-displaced, the coil is
pulled up through the under-displacement, and a similar
procedure to the UDP is then followed determine if the under-
displacement creates a successful isolation. Thus far about
50% of the treatments that did not screen-out have required a
subsequent sand plug stage. Although this is not less than
desired, the ISOP procedure coupled with an under-
displacement if the screen-out is not achieved appears to be
the best process trialled.
Lastly, to reduce lost time as a result of repeated sand plug
isolation failures, it is standard practice to have composite
bridge plugs available should they be required. Present
procedures have been to set them using wireline, causing
delays because of rigging in the wireline unit. Future
developments, discussed later in the paper, are underway to set
the plugs using coil tubing to limit delays.

Job Procedure Improvements. In addition to the job
procedure changes outlined in the previous section on isolation
methodologies, two other procedural changes have been
implemented. These are improvements to the breakdown
procedure and use of an initial sand plug operation to fill the
rat hole and provide scouring of the collars for improved depth
correlation.
As mentioned in the procedure outline, acid is pumped at
the tail of the jetting operation to aid formation breakdown.
This was originally circulated completely into the annulus
before the pressure was applied to the annulus to breakdown
the formation. Since then our process has been amended to
circulate half the acid and then breakdown using the remainder
while pumping down the coil tubing. Once breakdown is
observed, the annulus rate is immediately initiated. On high
stressed reservoirs, this approach has been further refined by
shutting down for a few minutes prior to the breakdown. This
gives the acid time to invade into the formation and this has
been observed to improve breakdowns of the tighter
formations.
The second improvement method in this section is the use
of an initial sand plug treatment. This was found to improve
the sand plug isolation success by establishing a small rat hole
prior to the first treatment. The initial sand plug also provided
cleaning of the collars for improved depth correlation using
the mechanical collar locator. Prior to the placement of the
initial sand plug, depth correlation for the first treatment was
often difficult to obtain The use of the initial sand plugs have
reduced coil fatigue, cycle time for the 1
st
frac stage
preparation, and total cycle time by limiting isolation
problems.

Evaluating Flow Convergence. One of the common
questions about PPF treatments is the concern about flow
convergence due to point source fracture initiation. This is
particularly difficult to evaluate as it is not possible to isolate
flow convergence from a pressure transient test when multiple
intervals are producing. Because of this limitation, the main
evaluation method has been to use post-frac production
logging tests (PLTs) plus post-frac perforating trials. PLTs
have been performed after all PPF treatments to determine if
significant pressure drops are observed in the near-wellbore
areas. Production near-wellbore pressure drops can be
determined in gas wells by the Joule-Thomson Effect (JTE)
observed with gas expansion
7
. If the pressure drop is in the
near-wellbore area, a large cooling effect will be observed at
the perforations. If the pressure drop is occurring beyond the
near-wellbore area, then limited cooling will be observed. The
magnitude of the JTE is dependent on the pressure drop and
gas properties. For example, using typical gas properties in the
Cooper Basin, a 5 deg F cooling is indicative of a pressure
drop of 320 psi (assuming a bottomhole flowing pressure of
SPE 106052 7
1000 psi). Table 4 provides an estimation of the pressure drop
using typical Cooper Basin gas properties and bottomhole
flowing pressure of 1000 psi.

Cooling Effect
(deg F)
Pressure
Drop (psi)
1 63
2 125
5 317
10 652
20 1408
30 2421
Table 4 - Prediction of Pressure Drop from JTE

An example of a PLT that does not show any cooling effect
(and thus no near-wellbore pressure drop) is presented as
Figure 12. The log tracks for this figure are the same as
presented in Figure 3, while the production during PLT was ~6
MMscf/day.

SONIC
US/F 140 40
OPEN HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
CASE HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
CALIPER
IN 11 6
CALIPER
IN 6 11
9200
9250
9300
9350
9400
D
E
P
T
H
m
e
tre
s
RS
OHMM 0.2 2000
RT
OHMM 0.2 2000
WATER
V/V 0.3 0
GAS
V/V 0.3 0
SHALE
V/V 0 1
QUARTZ
V/V 0 1
COAL
V/V 0 1
TEMPERATURE
DEGF 245 255
SPINNERS
-10 110
SONIC
US/F 140 40
OPEN HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
CASE HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
CALIPER
IN 11 6
CALIPER
IN 6 11
9200
9250
9300
9350
9400
D
E
P
T
H
m
e
tre
s
RS
OHMM 0.2 2000
RT
OHMM 0.2 2000
WATER
V/V 0.3 0
GAS
V/V 0.3 0
SHALE
V/V 0 1
QUARTZ
V/V 0 1
COAL
V/V 0 1
TEMPERATURE
DEGF 245 255
SPINNERS
-10 110

Figure 12 PLT showing no Cooling Effects

An example PLT showing a relative large cooling effect
(~15 deg F) is presented as Figure 13. This figure contains the
same log tracks as Figure 3 with production of ~2.5
MMscf/day from the displayed intervals during the PLT.
A review of all the PPF treatments indicates that observing
more than 15 deg F of cooling is rare (see Table 5).

Cooling Effect
(deg F)
Frequency
Less than 5 69%
5-15 21%
> 15 10%
Table 5 - Cooling Effects Observed of Post-Frac PLTs



OPEN HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
SONIC
US/F 140 40
CASE HOLE DATA
GAPI 0 150
CALIPER
IN 11 6
CALIPER
IN 6 11
P
E
R
F
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
8800
8850
D
E
P
T
H fe
e
t
RT
OHMM 0.2 2000
RS
OHMM 0.2 2000
WATER
V/V 0.3 0
GAS
V/V 0.3 0
SHALE
V/V 0 1
QUARTZ
V/V 0 1
3
COAL 0 1
TEMPERATURE
DEGF 270 300
SPINNERS
-10 110
OPEN HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
SONIC
US/F 140 40
CASE HOLE DATA
GAPI 0 150
CALIPER
IN 11 6
CALIPER
IN 6 11
P
E
R
F
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
8800
8850
D
E
P
T
H fe
e
t
RT
OHMM 0.2 2000
RS
OHMM 0.2 2000
WATER
V/V 0.3 0
GAS
V/V 0.3 0
SHALE
V/V 0 1
QUARTZ
V/V 0 1
3
COAL 0 1
TEMPERATURE
DEGF 270 300
SPINNERS
-10 110

Figure 13 PLT showing relatively large Cooling Effect

When significant cooling (> 5 deg F) was observed on the
post-frac PLT, post-frac perforating was trialled to determine
if this would benefit post-frac production. To date 16 intervals
have been post-frac perforated with no observed increase in
production. Based on these results it is not recommended to
perform post-frac perforations of future PPF intervals unless it
is predicted that limited fracture height coverage has occurred.

Treatments of Multiple Sands. During job planning it is a
common dilemma that adjacent sands are either to close
together for isolation with a sand plug (less than 20 ft) or that
they dont merit an individual treatment economically. One
technique that has been attempted was to make 2 separate jet
cuts and then to pump a single treatment hoping to treat both
zones, assuming that the limited jetted holes (3 perforations
per zone) would aid in diversion. The results from these two
zone treatments have not been successful from the post-frac
PLT surveys. Of the five previous double cut attempts flow
has from both intervals has only been observed once
suggesting that the frac is commonly only placed in one sand.
Figure 13 above also shows the post-Frac PLT survey of the
dual cut interval showing flow from only the upper interval.
After obtaining negligible flow from two sand treatments
using only one fracture injection, an alternative technique was
attempted where breakdown treatments (without isolation)
were performed after each jetting operation before the main
treatment. Figure 14 shows the results of this trial with
minimal flow from the upper sand. The figure includes the
same log tracks as identified in Figure 3 with production rates
of 0.38 and 1.05 MMscf/day from the upper and lower sands
respectively during the PLT.

8 SPE 106052
OPEN HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
SONIC
US/F 140 40
CASE HOLE DATA
GAPI 0 150
CALIPER
IN 11 6
CALIPER
IN 6 11
P
E
R
F
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
8800
D
E
P
T
H fe
e
t
RT
OHMM 0.2 2000
RS
OHMM 0.2 2000
WATER
V/V 0.3 0
GAS
V/V 0.3 0
SHALE
V/V 0 1
QUARTZ
V/V 0 1
1
COAL 0 1
TEMPERATURE
DEGF 250 300
SPINNERS
-10 110
OPEN HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
SONIC
US/F 140 40
CASE HOLE DATA
GAPI 0 150
CALIPER
IN 11 6
CALIPER
IN 6 11
P
E
R
F
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
8800
D
E
P
T
H fe
e
t
RT
OHMM 0.2 2000
RS
OHMM 0.2 2000
WATER
V/V 0.3 0
GAS
V/V 0.3 0
SHALE
V/V 0 1
QUARTZ
V/V 0 1
1
COAL 0 1
TEMPERATURE
DEGF 250 300
SPINNERS
-10 110

Figure 14 PLT after Dual Sand Treatment with
Individual Breakdowns

It is apparent that due to the typical stress contrasts in the
Cooper Basin, treating dual zones with one treatment is not
effective. However between the two methods, improved
results were observed with individual breakdowns of the two
intervals.

Combating High Stress. From the inception of PPF in the
Cooper Basin breakdown issues have been a common
occurrence. While breaking down with acid has not typically
been required on conventional fracture treatments, it was
apparent from the initial jobs that a 15% HCL acid pill at the
jetted holes greatly increased breakdown success. From the
149 treatments pumped thus far 9 zones have been unable to
be broken down. The majority of these zones are restricted to
certain problematic fields in the North Eastern part of the
Cooper Basin. When confronted with a zone that will not
breakdown, an attempt has been made to recut in the sand
above the previous cut. In one zone this has been successful in
allowing a fracture treatment to be completed. The post-frac
PLT, however, did not show any flow from the recut zone.
Figure 15 below shows a thick sand package which would not
break down through the jetted holes. This figure has the same
log tracks identified in Figure 3. The PLT estimate indicated
an interval rate of 0.30 MMscf/day, only 2% of the overall
well rate of 15.3 MMscf/day.
Instead of recutting, the zone was re-perforated with
conventional perforation methods and the zone subsequently
broke down enabling the entire fracture treatment to be placed.
The PLT result, however, shows negligible flow from the zone
suggesting an uneconomic stimulation. Of the 9 zones where
breakdown has been problematic, negligible gas flows have
been indicated on the PLT even after overcoming the
breakdown issues. Breakdown issues seem to coincide with
sub-optimal reservoir quality.

OPEN HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
SONIC
US/F 140 40
CASE HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 150
CALIPER
IN 11 6
CALIPER
IN 6 11
P
E
R
F
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
D
E
P
T
H fe
e
t
RT
OHMM 0.2 2000
RS
OHMM 0.2 2000
WATER
V/V 0.3 0
GAS
V/V 0.3 0
QUARTZ
V/V 0 1
SHALE
V/V 0 1
1
COAL 0 1
TEMPERATURE
DEGF 250 320
SPINNERS
-10 110
7850
7900
OPEN HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
SONIC
US/F 140 40
CASE HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 150
CALIPER
IN 11 6
CALIPER
IN 6 11
P
E
R
F
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
D
E
P
T
H fe
e
t
RT
OHMM 0.2 2000
RS
OHMM 0.2 2000
WATER
V/V 0.3 0
GAS
V/V 0.3 0
QUARTZ
V/V 0 1
SHALE
V/V 0 1
1
COAL 0 1
TEMPERATURE
DEGF 250 320
SPINNERS
-10 110
7850
7900
OPEN HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 200
SONIC
US/F 140 40
CASE HOLE GAMMA
GAPI 0 150
CALIPER
IN 11 6
CALIPER
IN 6 11
P
E
R
F
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
D
E
P
T
H fe
e
t
RT
OHMM 0.2 2000
RS
OHMM 0.2 2000
WATER
V/V 0.3 0
GAS
V/V 0.3 0
QUARTZ
V/V 0 1
SHALE
V/V 0 1
1
COAL 0 1
TEMPERATURE
DEGF 250 320
SPINNERS
-10 110
7850
7900

Figure 15 Example of Interval in which Conventional
Perforating Enabled Breakdown after Unsuccessful
Breakdown with Jetted Holes


Wellheads and Completions. PPF operations in Australia
have always been conducted within 4 P-110 casing. Casing
weight before mid-2006 was 15.1 lb/ft and then changed to
13.5 lb/ft for all wells after mid-2006. This change in casing
weight was a rationalization of future well requirements as
surface fracturing pressures rarely exceed 10,000 psi. At this
time we have not been able to document any change in jetting
efficiency or tool wear due to the reduced casing thickness.
New 4
1
/
16
10,000 psi wellheads were purchased for the
initial implementation of PPF complete with double 3
3
/
8

wing valves for dual barrier protection during pumping. This
wellhead gave the ability to perform PPF treatments at up to
15 bpm when using 1 coil. In June 2005, new 5
1
/
8

wellheads were introduced to enable higher fracturing rates.
Since the introduction of these wellheads, a large percentage
of the treatments have been performed at 20 bpm enabling
improved treatment placement and reduced cycle times. Two
zones of greater than 100,000 lbs of proppant have been
performed at 20 bpm and have shown minimal increase in
erosional wear of the wellhead or coil.


Bottom Hole Assembly (BHA)
Following the initial 4 well campaign
4
, PPF wells utilized a
reduced BHA including a 3-holed jetting sub and mechanical
collar locator (MCCL) in conjunction with sand plugs for
zonal isolation. Thirteen wells (63 stages) were performed
with the 7-foot BHA configuration detailed in Figure 16.

SPE 106052 9
BHA
Assembly
Item
#
Description O.D.
Item
Length
Total
Length
(inches) (inches) (inches)
1. Coil Connecter 3.20 0.71 0.71
2. Knuckle Joint 3.20 0.94 1.65
3. Disconnect 3.20 0.77 2.42
4. Jet Sub 3.20 1.00 3.42
5. Ball sub 3.20 0.81 4.23
6. X/Over 3.20 0.68 4.91
7. MCCL 3.60 2.17 7.08

Figure 16 - Schematic of the original BHA configuration

Compared with the previous PPF treatments, this BHA had
a positive safety impact on the working height of operations,
significantly reducing the lubricator requirement by over 50
percent. Additionally crane placement with respect to the well
head became more flexible as it was no longer at the upper
limit of its working range.
Two key challenges were identified during this period of
implementation;
1. excessive tool wear, and
2. disconnected/stuck BHAs between stages.
Excessive wear on the jet bodies was largely observed
from flow cutting during the proppant stages of the fracture
treatment and from splash-back during jetting operations. The
increase in wear required tools to be changed over after two
complete jetting and stimulation cycles. Change out at times
could be more frequent depending on the volume of proppant
pumped and the pressures seen during the jetting operations.
The flow cutting erosion caused from the proppant slurry was
believed to have an increased effect on the jets as the nozzle
inserts were the first major diameter change in the tool string.
The increase in splash-back erosion was suspected to be the
result the jetting tools not being completely centralised in the
wellbore. Often one or two of the three jets had noticeably
more wear in comparison to the other jet(s). Figure 17
exemplifies this variability, with Jet A showing significantly
greater wear around the nozzle face than Jets B and C after
three cutting operations.

J ET A J ET B J ET C
Greater erosion at nozzle A
J ET A J ET B J ET C
J ET A J ET B J ET C
Greater erosion at nozzle A

Figure 17 Varied levels of splash-back erosion seen from
jetting where jet sub above MCCL

Over the course of these 13 wells, the BHA became stuck
on 12 occasions. Various methods such as gel slugs and
surging were applied, successfully freeing the tools on 8 of
these cases. Each time the tools were pulled to surface and
examined for causal factors. Typically there were no visible
identifiers seen leading to the presumption that proppant
wedging between the tools and casing had occurred. Where
these previous methods failed to release the tools a conscious
decision to shear disconnect was made. Fishing the toolstring
using jars was very successful with recovery made on the first
or second attempt. Again the tools were inspected with no
visible causal factor identified. A method to minimize this
had to be developed for pinpoint to continue as the leading
method of stimulation in the Cooper Basin.

BHA Improvements. Given these challenges a reconfigured
BHA was implemented which has since proven to be a
successful step forward for PPF. The modified tool
arrangement is outlined in Figure 18.
Currently 13 wells (67 stages) have been conducted using
this new arrangement. By locating the MCCL directly above
the jets it assisted to more accurately centralize the jet sub.
This has been seen with more even wearing over all three jet
nozzles. This result has increased the number of stages that
can be achieved with the same BHA. The durability limits of
this system are still being evaluated, however at present up to
three zones have been successfully cut with the single jetting
sub. Similarly, two complete zones at increased rates of 20
bpm have also been performed both placing over 100-
thousand pounds of proppant. Since the introduction of this
adapted BHA the tools have not become caught downhole.
This is a significant step forward by the implementation team
to counter the earlier challenges facing PPF in the Cooper
Basin.

10 SPE 106052
BHA
Assembly
Item
#
Description O.D.
Item
Length
Total
Length
(inches) (inches) (inches)
1.
Coil
Connecter
3.20 0.71 0.71
2.
Knuckle
Joint
3.20 0.94 1.65
3. Disconnect 3.20 0.77 2.42
4. X/Over 3.20 0.81 3.23
5. MCCL 3.20 2.00 5.23
6. X/Over 3.20 0.60 5.83
7. Jet Sub 3.20 1.00 6.83
8. Ball sub 3.20 0.81 7.64
9. Bull nose 3.20 0.90 8.54

Figure 18 - Schematic of the current BHA configuration


Coil Fatigue. As with many coiled tubing operations,
managing the fatigue of the pipe is a crucial element of
reducing the costs of operations. Given the BHA advances
mentioned above the number of trips in and out of the well has
been significantly reduced over time. Currently procedures
have been put in place to keep milling and cleanout operations
to a single run. Here the mill is placed on the BHA during the
wash operation. Current challenges and practices limit PPF
operations to a single plug in each wellbore for milling
operations. Current plug technology is being investigated to
determine the application and removal of multiple plugs in
the Cooper Basins pressure and high temperature
environment.
On many field PPF campaigns it was noted that the initial
well construction, including the placement of marker joints,
was consistent between the wells. With many target reservoirs
extending across the field, coil was repeatedly being cycled at
the same depth in every wellbore. This led to high fatigue
spikes in the coiled tubing causing spiked sections to be
removed from the reel altogether or large sections to be cut
from the end. Current planning now incorporates these issues
so that marker joints can be varied from well to well in a
campaign program. By managing and extending the coil life
the unit stage cost of PPF is reduced.

Depth Control. PPF operations have always used a MCCL in
conjunction with surface metering. The depth adjustment
made to surface counters after correlating is documented on
each stage. Unfortunately with many target intervals less than
10 feet thick and often surrounded by coals or water bearing
sands the results indicated surface measurements could not
provide sufficient accuracy. Therefore a MCCL has been
required to provide the primary depth control during PPF
operations. Regular checks are conducted to ensure depth
control reliability through the analysis of post-frac PLTs.
Of the 30 wells currently stimulated via PPF, 28 of these
have been tested with PLTs over the target intervals. Over the
producing intervals the temperature and spinner tracks are
used to evaluate and compare the actual and planned cutting
depths. The results from this depth review are displayed in
Figure 19.


2ft
4%
3ft
1%
4ft+
1%
1ft
17%
On Depth
77%

Figure 19 - Current depth control statistics on the
accuracy of the MCCL for PPF seen on PLTs (flowing
intervals only)

This ongoing study has shown that over the 114 intervals
currently jet cut and flowing on PLT only a single jet cut has
exceeded a 4 ft discrepancy from the programmed depth. In
fact, 77% were exactly on depth and a further 17% within a
single foot. This level of accuracy has enabled the successful
target and placement of thin zones as little as four feet thick.


Current Challenges
No Breakdown. It is clear that the inability to breakdown
intervals using the PPF technique is a major concern.
Currently breakdown problems have been observed in 6% of
PPF attempts, however extremely few of these intervals have
shown production following conventional post-frac
perforating. Perforating the intervals using conventional guns
has enabled successful breakdown and treatment placement
when point source jetting has been unsuccessful. This is due
to differences between point source fracture initiations with
the PPF technique as compared to breakdown through larger
(5-10 ft) conventionally perforated intervals. With this in mind
some future developments are underway to overcome these
SPE 106052 11
PPF breakdown limitations. These involve using larger coil to
enable higher jetting rates facilitating more jets staggered over
a larger interval.

High Stress Injections. Presently the high stress environment
continues to be one of the key challenges facing the
advancement of PPF; particularly in areas with frac gradients
are greater than 1.1 psi/ft. In these very high gradients, it is
believed that waterfracs are the best way to stimulate these
types of reservoirs
3
. To date the incorporation of waterfracs
into PPF operations has not yet been trialled in the Cooper
Basin.

Successive Depleted Reservoirs. Conventional fracturing
experience in the Cooper Basin has shown the benefits of
energised fluids in depleted reservoirs. Energised fluids
improve fracture cleanup by maintain post-frac flow and
preventing the need of coil intervention. At this point few
depleted formations (pore pressures < 0.2 psi/ft) have been
targeted. The future step will be to understand how to perform
PPF treatments in depleted intervals and particularly in
multiple successive depleted zones. Future trials are required
to answer questions surrounding the need for energized fluids
in PPF treatments, whether flowback between PPF treatments
is required, the best procedures for PPF treatment isolation, or
whether other multi-staging methods are more appropriate.

Premature Screenouts. As noted earlier (Table 2), 26% of
PPF treatments result in premature screenouts defined as
proppant placement less than 75%. Premature screenouts
significantly reduce the overall efficiency of PPF operations,
plus prevent obtaining the full potential of the interval. It is
suspected that one of the key reasons for premature screenouts
is the reduced injection rates of the PPF treatments. Before the
introduction of the new 5
1
/
8
frac trees, the main treatment
rates were limited to 15 bpm, while with the new wellheads
many treatments are now being performed at 20 bpm. This
increase in treatment rate has shown benefit for allowing
placement of larger treatments. As PPF premature screenout
rates are still higher than desired, further technology
developments are needed to enable even higher pump rates.

Isolation Techniques. One of the most time consuming
operations is obtaining treatment isolation using sand or
proppant plugs. The variations in procedures have been
documented earlier; however these procedures are constantly
being refined. The biggest challenge is to obtain adequate
isolation when the induced screenout procedure (ISOP) is
unsuccessful (i.e. a screenout is not achieved). Therefore,
improving the ability to obtain a planned screenout is the main
challenge for isolation using the PPF technique. Additionally,
use of mechanical plugs set via coil is needed when sand plug
operations are too time consuming.

Candidate Selection. As seen from PPF results, another major
challenge facing the economical efficiency of PPF involves
the candidate selection of targets. Historical PPF production
results have shown limited correlation between the zone
quality indicated on raw logs, rock typing, and open-hole
formation testers and the production results from PLTs. This
lack of predictability poses significant challenges to
economically justify an incremental frac stage. Depleting
reservoir pressures and increasing well costs have placed
additional economic pressures on selecting the most
appropriate PPF targets. The current challenge is to improve
prediction of post-frac performance to better assess future PPF
opportunities.


Future Directions
Many positive developments have been incorporated into
PPF during its short two year history in the Cooper Basin.
Even with these improvements, a number of challenges remain
that will require additional trials that are outlined below.

2 Coil. With a high percentage of unwanted premature
screenouts still occurring, a large proportion of time is
consumed by the reversing and cleaning operations. Where
multiple screenouts occur in a single well, the time associated
with this part of the process can form a significant part of the
overall well cycle time. With 1
3
/
4
coil reversing and jetting
rates are limited to 3 bpm. To reduce this time, a change to 2
coil has recently been made. This will allow increased
reversing rates, halving the expected cleanup times. In
addition this coil will allow for an increase in the number of
jets on the BHA to 5 or 6 spread over a two foot interval. An
updated schematic of this BHA is contained in Figure 20. By
introducing multiple jets at a range of depths, spiraled over
two feet, it is expected that this will improve breakdown
efficiency. The first trial of 2 coil occurs in Dec 2006.

BHA
Assembly
Item
#
Description O.D.
Item
Length
Total
Length
(inches) (inches) (inches)
1.
Coil
Connecter
3.20 0.71 0.71
2.
Knuckle
Joint
3.20 0.94 1.65
3. Disconnect 3.20 0.77 2.42
4. X/Over 3.20 0.81 3.23
5. MCCL 3.20 2.00 5.23
6. X/Over 3.20 0.60 5.83
7.
6 Hole Jet
Sub
3.20 2.67 8.50
8. Ball sub 3.20 0.81 9.31
9. Bull nose 3.20 0.90 10.21

Figure 20 - BHA Schematic With 6 Hole Jetting Sub
12 SPE 106052
Slim Line Tools. The annulus treatment rate is presently
limited to 20 bpm due to erosional constraints across the tools.
New designs to reduce the outer diameter of the tools are
currently being developed. The aim is to increase pump rates
to a minimum of 25 bpm to assist with improving treatment
placement. The increase in rate will also cut down on the
cycle time for each zone.

Coil Set Bridge Plugs. A discussion on the current process
involved with isolation methodologies was detailed earlier in
this paper. As noted significant time delays can be associated
with waiting for a wireline unit to become available and arrive
on location. To counter this issue investigation into setting the
plugs on coil was completed. A surface test successfully
confirmed the ability of coil to set and release from a
composite plug. The first application of this system will be
implemented in Dec 2006. The current pinpoint field
operations are set up with 24-hour coil and daylight
stimulation crews. Therefore further time can be saved
through overnight cleaning and setting operations allowing
jetting to commence the following morning.

Tower. PPF treatments are currently performed under
suspended loads. A 50-ton crane holds the injector in place
during all well operations. To increase the flexibility and
importantly the safety of PPF operations a tower arrangement,
similar to that used for under balanced drilling, is being
designed. This will allow for BHAs to be changed more
quickly while improving the safety of personnel involved with
this operation.

PPF Performance Team. To improve the implementation of
PPF within the Cooper Basin a PPF Performance Team was
created. This team comprises representatives from the
operating companys stimulation and completions departments
plus the contractors engineering and operations groups. Long
and short term issues are raised and possible solutions
progressed. Many of the developments associated with the
isolation methods and the previously mentioned future
directions arose within this Performance Team. This
partnership between field and office personnel within the
operating and service companies is a crucial element of the
successful progress of PPF in the Cooper Basin.

Conclusions
1. Significant progress of PPF technology has been
accomplished in the Cooper Basin with 30 wells (149
stages) stimulated since mid-2004. Production
performance from these wells has shown better than
expected results.
2. The biggest improvements to PPF have been the
adjustment to the BHA, altering the sand plug isolation
method, and changes to breakdown procedures.
3. One of the biggest challenges is increasing the percentage
of intervals that can be fractured by point-source
initiation. Experience shows fracture initiation problems
in 6% of intervals, likely reducing well performance.
4. Premature screenouts are currently observed in 26% of
the PPF treatments. This is comparable with Non-PPF
statistics and reflects the difficult fracturing conditions of
the Cooper Basin. Increasing the maximum rate available
for treatments has shown benefit improving the net
placement of jobs. Currently research and development of
slim line tools is underway to further raise the maximum
treatment rate.
5. When testing the application limits of PPF technology in
the Cooper Basin, marginal zones have been selected to
understand the economic limit for incremental fracture
stages. When viewed as a campaign the few upside results
have paid for the remainder that have proven sub-
economic.
6. High stress (frac gradients > 1.1 psi/ft) and poor reservoir
quality are key causes for fracture initiation problems.
Conventional perforation techniques have allowed
fracture initiation in instances where no breakdown was
achieved after single depth jetting. Production results in
these cases have been disappointing with conventional
fracturing methods. Waterfrac treatments are perceived to
be the preferred application in these challenging
situations.
7. Historical PPF production results have shown limited
correlation between the zone quality indicated from
conventional log analysis, open-hole formation testers,
and rock typing and the production results from PLTs.
Improved candidate selection guidelines are being
developed to rank target intervals and recognize
uneconomic zones.
8. Various jetting sub designs are currently being trialled
that allow for up to six jetting nozzles spaced over a
distance of two feet. The aim is to reduce the risk of
breakdown problems associated with rock variability in
laminated environments.
9. At present, PPF treatments have not been extended into
highly depleted formations. Future trials are required to
answer whether PPF technology is applicable for
stimulating multiple depleted formations.


Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the managements of both
Halliburton, Santos Ltd., and the JV partners (Origin Energy
and Delhi Petroleum) for permission to publish this material.
We would like to expressly thank Josh Heffernan for
assistance in creating some of the excellent graphics and Scott
Knoblauch for help with the data gathering process. We would
also like to thank the many people with Santos and Halliburton
that have been involved in the development of the PPF
technology within the Cooper Basin.


References
1. Gravestock, D.I., Hibburt, J.E. and Drexel, J.F. (Eds),
1998. The petroleum geology of South Australia.
Vol. 4: Cooper Basin. South Australia. Department of
Primary Industries and Resources. Report Book,
98/9.
2. Squire, S.G.: Reservoir and Pool Parameter
Distributions from the Cooper/Eromanga Basin,
Australia, paper SPE 37365 presented at 1996 Asia
SPE 106052 13
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Adelaide, 28-31 October.
3. McGowen, J.M., Gilbert, J.V. and Samari, E.:
Hydraulic Fracturing Down-Under, paper SPE
106052 presented at 2007 Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, College Station, 2931
January.
4. Gilbert, J.V. and Greenstreet, C.W.: Application of
Pinpoint Fracturing in the Cooper Basin, Australia,
paper SPE 97004 presented at the 2005 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 9-12
October.
5. Surjaatmadja, J.B., East, Loyd E., Luna Jose B.,
Hernandez, John O.E. An effective HydraJet
Fracturing Implementation Using Coiled Tubing and
Annular Stimulation Fluid Delivery paper 94098
presented at eh 2005 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing
Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands,
Texas, U.S.A., 12-13 April.
6. Hejl, K.A., Madding, A.M., Morea, M.F., Glatz,
C.W., Luna, J., Minner, W.A., Singh, T., and Stanley,
G.R. Extreme Multistage Fracturing Improves
Vertical Coverage and Well Performance in the Lost
Hills Field, paper SPE 101840 presented at 2006
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24-27 September.
7. McCain, W.D. Jr.: Petroleum Fluids 2
nd
Edition,
Chapter 6, PennWell Books, Tulsa, Oklahama, 1990,
190-191.