This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]

On: 31 December 2014, At: 13:42

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,

Utilization, and Environmental Effects
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueso20

A Feasibility Investigation of Hydra-jet

Fracturing in Deep Wells
a

G.-S. Li , Q. Xia
Sheng

a b

, Z.-W. Huang , H.-N. Qu , S.-C. Tian & M.

State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resource and Prospecting ,

China University of Petroleum , Beijing , P.R. China
b

CNOOC Research Center , Beijing , P.R. China

Published online: 27 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: G.-S. Li , Q. Xia , Z.-W. Huang , H.-N. Qu , S.-C. Tian & M. Sheng (2012) A
Feasibility Investigation of Hydra-jet Fracturing in Deep Wells, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,
Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 34:23, 2156-2163, DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2011.561667
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2011.561667

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Energy Sources, Part A, 34:21562163, 2012

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1556-7036 print/1556-7230 online
DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2011.561667

A Feasibility Investigation of Hydra-jet

Fracturing in Deep Wells
G.-S. LI,1 Q. XIA,1;2 Z.-W. HUANG,1 H.-N. QU,1
S.-C. TIAN,1 and M. SHENG1
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 13:42 31 December 2014

State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resource and Prospecting, China

University of Petroleum, Beijing, P.R. China
2
CNOOC Research Center, Beijing, P.R. China

Abstract With the exploration and discovery of deep low-permeability reservoirs

in China, fracturing operations in high-temperature and deep wells are more and
more important. Conventional fracturing treatment has some difficulties, such as
high bottomhole fracturing pressure, high pump pressure, and malfunction of packer
resulting from high temperature, etc. This article presents hydra-jet fracturing, a
unique, relatively new stimulation technology that could greatly decrease bottomhole
fracturing pressure, and pack off fracture interval using hydrodynamic energy without
any packers, implementing fixed directional multilayer fracturing with a one-trip
fracturing string. These technical advantages of hydra-jet fracturing are conducive to
deep wells fracturing.
Keywords deep wells fracturing, feasibility, fracturing pressure, hydra-jet fracturing,
parameters calculating

1. Introduction
Western exploration has now reached nearly 8,000 m. Abundant low permeability reservoirs have been founded in Tarim and Junggar basins in which the main lithology is on
carbonate and tight clastic rocks, and depth, in general, is between 5,0006,500 m. These
oilfields have features, which include deeply buried, large thickness, high temperature,
low permeability, strong heterogeneity, low natural productivity, and needs to apply acid
fracturing and hydra-jet fracturing.
High temperature and deep formation fracturing exists in a series of difficulties, such
as high temperature, high pressure, and high closure pressure, causing technical problems
as follows: (1) Target fracturing layers are deep, bottom formation fracture pressure is
high, and the pipe friction loss will increase with the well depth increasing, so the ground
fracturing construction pressure is high. (2) The high temperature formation fracturing
fluid requires the properties of good heat resistant, anti-shearing, delay-crosslinking, and
low friction, meanwhile, the downhole sealing also needs good high temperature resistant
performance. (3) The operation well sections are deep, and formation closure pressure
is high.
Address correspondence to Hong-Na Qu, State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resource and
Prospecting, University of Petroleum, Beijing, Beijing 102249, China. E-mail: bjquhongna@qq.com

2156

Hydra-jet Fracturing in Deep Wells

2157

Due to the above difficulties of high temperature deep formation fracturing, the
fracturing effect is limited in these reservoirs, using the conventional acid-fracturing
treatment; therefore, it is necessary to research a new acid-fracture technology. The hydrajet fracturing technique is a new stimulation method that integrates with perforating,
hydra-jet fracturing, and hydrodynamic sealing, and can fracture accurately set-points
without mechanical packers. Through hydraulic jetting, oriented sandblasting perforating
can reduce formation of fracture pressure, so the fracturing measures can be effectively
applied in deep reservoirs of high temperature.

2. Hydra-jet Fracturing Mechanism

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 13:42 31 December 2014

2.1.

Hydraulic Sandblasting Perforating Mechanism

Hydraulic sandblasting perforating is explained as follows: abrasive fluid is pumped down

through a jetting tool, which converts high pressure energy into kinetic energy, then the
abrasive jet begins to cut across the casing and cement sheath, thus, creating certain
diameter and depth perforation tunnels towards the reservoir rock near the wellbore
(Song et al., 2006). Compared with conventional shaped charge perforation, hydraulic
sandblasting perforating technology has the main properties of low perforating density,
large hole diameter, deep-perforation, and easy location, etc. It can create spindle holes
with a large diameter of up to 50 mm and a depth of 800 mm in the formation without
generating crushed zone (Gong et al., 2007; Liu and Li, 2006).
2.2.

Hydra-jet Fracturing Mechanism

According to the Bernoulli equation stating that jet tools generate a high-speed flow,
the energy focusing on the pin-point begins to perforate and fracture (Eberhard et al.,
2000; Tian et al., 2008). At the hydra-jet stage, by opening the tubing-casing annular,
the perforating fluid injects into the formation and creates spindle holes in the formation
in 1520 min.
At the hydraulic fracturing stage, close the casing-tubing annular or pump fracturing
fluid into tubing annular, meanwhile, control annular pressure below fracture extension
pressure, and continue to inject fracturing fluid, which will form pressure boosting
in the cavity. When the jetting boosting pressure and annular pressure are folded to
exceed fracture pressure, then the top formation of the perforating hole begins to split
(Figure 1). Actually, the boosting effect ensures the jet to realize the pin-point fracturing;
the conditions are as follows:
pboost C pannulus  pf :
2.3.

(1)

Hydrodynamic Sealing

After forming cracks, the high speed jetting fluid continues to inject into the cavity and
cracks, so the jet nozzle, annulus, cavity, and cracks constitute a jetting system, which
acts just like a jet pump (Surjaatmadja et al., 2002). According to the Bernoulli equation,
the jetting speed is high and the pressure is low near the outlet, thus, the annular fluid
can be drawn into fractures by the differential pressure, but is incapable of flowing to
other places along the wellbore. So, the hydra-jet fracturing perforating process could
not use the mechanical packers.

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 13:42 31 December 2014

2158

G.-S. Li et al.

Figure 1. Graphics of hydra-jet fracturing mechanism. (color figure available online)

3. Assembled Hydra-jet Fracturing Tool

The assembled hydra-jet fracturing tool is the key part of this technique, which consists
of a centralizer, spray gun, one-way valve, and sieve tube (Figure 2).
Some nozzles are fixed in the jet body, and according to the demand of the formation
stress, the phase angle of nozzles can be optimized. A reflux device is part of the main
tools, which is installed inside a seepage baffle and a ball at the bottom. The ball stays
in the bottom when applying the hydra-jet fracturing operation, so the fluid will not flow
from the bottom to annular. Fluid will flow through annular returning to the ground when
operating reverse wash.

4. Hydra-jet Fracturing Feasibility Analysis in Deep Wells

Hydra-jet fracturing technology integrated hydraulic sandblasting perforating and the
hydraulic fracturing process. According to the demand of the formation stress, optimize
the phase angle of the nozzles and make sure the extension of cracks direction is in
line with the direction of maximum horizontal principal-stress; avoid cracks in the near
wellbore reverse bend. Compared with conventional perforating, it can greatly reduce
formation initial pressure, which effectively solves the problem of high initial pressure in
the deep well. At the same time, hydraulic sandblasting perforating creates large diameter

Figure 2. An assembled hydra-jet fracturing tool. (color figure available online)

Hydra-jet Fracturing in Deep Wells

2159

holes. According to Hainey et al. (1995), flow resistance formula in holes is as follows:

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 13:42 31 December 2014

Pperf /

Q2
;
c 2 d 4 Np2

(2)

where Pperf is hole flow resistance; Q is flow rate; c is flow coefficient; d is hole
diameter; and Np is hole number.
According to the formula, hole flow resistance increases gradually with the increase
of flow rate when a hole diameter is small. In order to balance the extra fracturing fluid, it
is hard to develop extra tiny cracks near the wellbore. Therefore, it is very advantageous
to use hydraulic sandblasting perforating to create a single main crack. In addition, using
hydraulic sealing in the entire process without using other packers can solve the failure
of a packer in the deep and high temperature formation when applying fracturing.
When the formation fracturing pressure is high, using the hydra-jet acid fracturing
technique to pre-treat in carbonate formation can effectively solve the problems of a
small injection rate in regular acidizing and high well-head pressure. Hydra-jet fracturing
technology can quickly form high quality foam acid in the bottom, and, finally, it gets a
good acid fracturing effect.

5. Hydra-jet Fracturing Calculating Analysis in Deep Wells

A casing completion well with a depth of 6,110 m and a well structure is shown in
Table 1. Plan to apply the hydra-jet fracturing stimulation measure in the 4,500 m layer,
and the formation fracturing gradient pressure is 0.024 MPa/m. The fracturing string
parameters are shown in Table 2.
5.1.

Fracturing String Strength Check

The hydra-jet fracturing string suffers mainly by the axial tensile force, so use the safety
factor method to check axial tensile strength for the string joint. At different stages
of fracturing, the component of axial tensile force is also different. The stress of the
operating conditions is as follows:
(1) Before applying hydra-jet fracturing: string likes a suspension chain, the whole
string suffers floating gravity.
(2) At the stage of hydraulic sandblasting perforating: fluid flows into tubing, out
from annular. String suffers floating gravity, the fluid viscous friction, and expansion force.
(3) At the stage of hydra-jet fracturing: fluid pumps into tubing and annular simultaneously. String suffers floating gravity, the fluid viscous friction, and expansion
force, but the difference is that string suffers the friction from fluid in tubing
and annular.
In order to guarantee the safety of string in each stage in the process, it is necessary
to consider the most dangerous situation that string suffers float gravity, fluid viscous
friction, and expansion force.
According to Table 2, the calculating results are as follows (Du et al., 2008): the
first section tubing in vertical deep 2,000 m suffers the biggest axial tensile force T1,
T1 D 404:8 kN:

2160

N-80
P-105

6.45
9.52

Wall
thickness,
mm

Production casing

88.9 (31/2)
88.9 (31/2)

6,110.0

215.9

Casing
program

Surface casing
Intermediate casing

Steel
grade

1,505.0
4,398.5

444.5
311.2

Outer
diameter,
mm/in.

Drill
depth,
m

Bit
size,
mm

76.0
69.8

P110

J55
P110

Steel
grade

10.54

10.92
11.99

Wall
thickness,
mm

708/922
1,438/1,720

Joint yield
strength, KN
(unthicken/thicken)

Table 2
Fracturing string parameters
Inner
diameter,
mm

139.7

339.7
244.5

Casing
size,
mm

Table 1
Data of well structure

9.17

Linked,
m

70.1/70.1
135.8/135.8

Internal yield
strength, MPa
(unthicken/thicken)

4,248.176,100.0
6,106.55

1,503.81
4,396.13

Casing
depth,
m

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 13:42 31 December 2014

72.6
138.5

Collapse
strength,
MPa

2,500
2,000

Casing
depth,
m

Hanger
4,248.174,250.51 m

Location
casing
depth, m

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 13:42 31 December 2014

Hydra-jet Fracturing in Deep Wells

2161

Figure 3. The curve of tubing head axial force with vertical depth. (color figure available online)

The second section tubing in the wellhead suffers the biggest axial tensile force T2
(Figure 3),
T2 D 833:0 kN:
Then in vertical deep 2,000 m, the joint tensile safety coefficient is n1,
n1 D 922=404:8 D 2:27 > 1:
The hose connector tensile safety coefficient is n2,
n2 D 1,720=833:0 D 2:06 > 1:
Check result shows that the fracture string can satisfy the required strength.
5.2.

Hydraulic Parameters Calculating

Hydraulic parameters for hydra-jet fracturing include tubing and annular displacement,
and tubing and annular pressure; it is very important to determine and control reasonably the pressure and flow rate in tubing and annular in the wellsite, because these
parameters are concerned with the nozzle diameter and nozzle number. According to the
common fracturing fluid friction calculation equation in oilfield (Huang and He, 2005),
the relationship of some fracturing fluid in different nozzle combinations with tubing
displacement and nozzle pressure drop can be obtained, as shown in Table 3.
From Table 3, the nozzle parameters, tubing displacement, and ground pump pressure
can be determined according to the pressure-bearing limits of the fracturing string.
Combine the perforating and fracturing effect with various aspects factors, choose eight
nozzles with a diameter of 6.0 mm, and keep the nozzle pressure drop at 30 MPa and
tubing displacement between 2.83.0 m3 /min.
5.3.

Wellhead Pressure Calculating

Wellhead pressure calculating mainly refers to tubing and casing head pressure calculation

2162

G.-S. Li et al.

Table 3
The relationship of flow rate with pump pressure and nozzle pressure drop in hydra-jet
Tubing pressure (MPa)/nozzle pressure drop (MPa)
Tubing
displacement,
m3 /min

Seven nozzle
with diameter
6.0 mm

Eight nozzle
with diameter
5.5 mm

Eight nozzle
with diameter
6.0 mm

Eight nozzle
with diameter
6.5 mm

2.5

57.22
28.10
61.10
30.39
65.13
32.78
69.28
35.25
73.56
37.81
77.97
40.46

59.59
30.47
63.67
32.96
67.89
35.54
72.25
38.22
76.75
41.00
81.39
43.88

50.63
21.51
53.98
23.27
57.44
25.09
61.02
26.99
64.70
28.95
68.49
30.98

44.74
15.62
47.60
16.89
50.57
18.22
53.62
19.59
56.77
21.02
60.00
22.49

2.6

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 13:42 31 December 2014

2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0

at different stages of hydraulic sandblasting perforation and hydra-jet fracturing. At

the stage of hydraulic sandblasting perforating, open tubing-casing annular and pump
perforating fluid through tubing, then perforate formation by jet tools, and the flow-out
fluid returns to the ground. The ground tubing pressure equation is as follows:
Ptubing D Pannulus C Pb C Pftubing C Pfannulus;

(3)

where Ptubing is ground tubing pressure, MPa; Pannulus is ground annular pressure, MPa;
Pb is nozzle pressure drop, MPa; Pftubing is fracturing fluid friction in tubing, MPa; and
Pfannulus is fracturing fluid friction in annular, MPa.
At the stage of hydra-jet fracturing, the success conditions for fracturing combined
with hydra-jet fracturing mechanism are:
pannulus C ph C pboost

pfannulus  pf ;

(4)

where Ph is hydrostatic fluid column pressure, MPa; Pboost is perforating holes boosting
pressure, MPa; and Pf is formation fracture pressure, MPa.
Hole boost pressure Pboost increases with the increasing nozzles pressure drop. Based
on field test data, it is necessary to keep the nozzles pressure drop at 30 MPa, and the
hole boost pressure is about 6.0 MPa.
At the stage of hydra-jet fracturing, ground tubing pressure and annular pressure
calculating equations are as follows:
Ptubing D Pannulus C Pb C Pftubing
Pannulus D Pf C Pfannulus

Ph

Pfannulus;

Pboost:

(5)
(6)

According to the hydraulic parameters design in Table 3, maintain tubing displacement

at 3.0 m3 /min and nozzle pressure drop at 30 MPa. At the stage of hydraulic sandblasting

Hydra-jet Fracturing in Deep Wells

2163

perforating, open the tubing-casing annular and maintain the maximum tubing pressure
at 68.49 MPa. At the stage of hydra-jet fracturing, do not change tubing displacement,
close tubing-casing annular, or pump fracturing fluid into annular to ensure cracks full
extension as wellsite required, and maintain the maximum ground tubing pressure at
88.28 MPa and the largest annular pressure at about 43.54 MPa.

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 13:42 31 December 2014

6. Conclusions
1. Hydra-jet fracturing technique can easily achieve perfect perforations, and rational
selection of perforation position can ensure cracks extension vertical to the minimum horizontal principal-stress direction, and make great crack width. Thus, the
cracks extend in a single direction, which avoids the cracks diversion. The jetting
boosting pressure and annular pressure are folded to create cracks to extend and
realize hydrodynamic sealing without mechanical packers, thus, implementing
fixed directional multilayer fracturing with one trip fracturing string.
2. Theoretically analyze the feasibility of hydra-jet fracturing technique in deep
wells, and use the application of Tahe oilfield wells data to check and calculate
the fracturing string intensity, hydraulic parameters design, and wellhead pressure.
The results show that the hydra-jet fracturing technique in deep well fracturing
is practical and feasible.

Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by the Key Project of Chinese National Programs
for Fundamental Research and Development (973 program), No. 2010CB226704. The
authors are grateful for approval to publish.

References
Du, X., Wang, H., and Wang, S. 2008. Mechanics analysis of down-hole string used for deep-well
fracturing and its application. Oil Field Equip. 37:2833 (in Chinese).
Eberhard, M. J., Surjaatmadja, J., Peterson, E. M., Lockman, R. R., and Grundmann, S. R.
2000. Precise fracture initiation using dynamic fluid movement allows effective fracture
development in deviated wellbores. SPE Paper No. 62889. SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 14.
Gong, J., Huang, Z., Li, G., and Niu, J. 2007. Auxiliary fracturing and sand pack mechanism of
hydraulic abrasive perforation and its field test. J. Oil & Gas Technol. 29:136139 (in Chinese).
Hainey, B. W., Weng, X., and Stoisits, R. F. 1995. Mitigation of multiple fractures from deviated
wellbores. SPE Paper No. 30482. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
TX, October 2225.
Huang, Y., and He, H. 2005. Calculation of pipe string friction during fracturing operation in
Chuanxi area. Spec. Oil & Gas Reserv. 12:7173 (in Chinese).
Liu, L., and Li, G. 2006. Study on influence of hydraulic perforation on casing strength. Nat. Gas
Ind. 26:8385.
Song, J., Li, G., and Niu, J. 2006. Research of enhancing oil production and water injection with
helical hydraulic sand-blasting slotting. Nat. Gas Ind. 26:133135 (in Chinese).
Surjaatmadja, J. B., McDaniel, B. W., and Sutherland, R. L. 2002. Unconventional multiple fracture
treatments using dynamic diversion and downhole mixing. SPE Paper No. 77905. SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, October 810.
Tian, S., Li, G., Huang, Z., and Shen, Z. 2008. Research on hydrajet fracturing mechanisms and
technologies. Oil Drill. & Prod. Technol. 30:5862 (in Chinese).