SPE 56589

Near-Wellbore Halo Effect Resulting from Tip Screenout Fracturing:

Its Direct Measurement and Implication for Sand Control
E. R. Upchurch, SPE, Thums Long Beach Company
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 36 October 1999.
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
This paper presents the findings of an investigation to
determine whether or not a near-wellbore halo is generated
during the process of fracture stimulating a well in a soft,
unconsolidated formation. The investigation delves into
whether net-pressure generation has any effect on the halos
formation and, finally, whether the halo could be utilized by
petroleum operators as an inexpensive way to control
formation sand production.
The results from 4 fracture stimulations in perfectly
vertical wells are the primary data used in this investigation.
In each case, all necessary steps were taken to ensure that the
collected data would show conclusively whether or not the
halo occurred and, more qualitatively, to what extent a
significant net-pressure increase (resulting from a tip
screenout) affected the halos formation. All data presented
here resulted from direct downhole measurements, either by
bottom-hole pressure gauges or by specialized azimuthal GR
logging tools that can directionally measure gamma ray
intensity.
To date, the possible existence and benefit of the halo has
been a topic of conjecture. This study represents the first
attempt at directly confirming the existence and extent of the
halo under actual downhole conditions.
Introduction
Tip screenout (TSO) fracturing is commonly used in the
petroleum industry to maximize fracture widths and
conductivities. It is hypothesized that a natural consequence
of generating fracture width is the simultaneous separation of
the borehole from the casing thus creating a concentric space
or halo around the casing. Given a wide enough fracture

(and, in turn, halo), it is a logical conclusion that the halo

would be packed with proppant during the fracture stimulation
process.
This proppant-packed halo is of high interest to operators
who routinely frac-pack unconsolidated zones since the halo
(if filled with resin-coated proppant) could act as a gravel pack
that is external to the wells casing. If the proppant-packed
halo could truly function as an external gravel pack, then
screenless TSO-fractured completions would certainly become
the technology of choice for obtaining low-cost, highproductivity completions in unconsolidated formations. The
halos existence, however, has never been directly determined
either in the laboratory or under downhole conditions.
TSO fracturing has been utilized in various forms in recent
years to prevent sand production. One such TSO fracturing
application1 indirectly prevents sand production by raising a
wells productivity high enough to allow producing at a
reduced pressure drawdown. Another TSO fracturing method
for indirect sand control2 calls for growing a fracture upward
into a less competent zone from perforations in a more
competent zone below, thereby preventing any direct
communication between the perforations and the less
competent zone above other than the fracture itself. Direct
attempts3,4 at preventing sand production involve using resincoated proppant (RCP) and TSO fracturing. This technique
relies on building as much net-pressure as possible to,
hopefully, create a halo of RCP around the wellbore or, at a
minimum, force RCP into all perforations that are not aligned
with the fracture (see Figure 1).
Perforations

Fracture

Resin Coated
Proppant

Casing &
Cement Sheath

Halo Between Cement

Sheath and Formation Face

Fig. 1-Halo effect.

E. R. UPCHURCH

This direct sand control technique has resulted in both

successes and failures. The successes, however, have not
proven to be directly correlatable with the attainment of a TSO
and subsequent building of significant net-pressure. To
understand why this is so, Thums Long Beach Company
embarked on an investigation to answer the following
questions.
(1) Does the halo really occur?
(2) To what extent does net-pressure affect the halo?
(3) Does the halo exist to a great enough extent to act as
an external gravel pack around the perforated
interval?
To answer these questions, we evaluated 4 fracture
stimulations in similar unconsolidated formations. The results
of that investigation are the focus of this paper.
Target Reservoir Description
The reservoir in which this investigation was conducted is the
Lower Ranger Zone in the East Wilmington Field of
California. The Lower Ranger Zone is an anticlinal structure
consisting of various sands that are 120 in combined
thickness distributed over a 200 gross interval. Zone depths
associated with this study range from 2650 TVD to 3170
TVD. The sand intervals are usually 5 to 15 thick turbidite
deposits separated by shale intervals ranging from 1 to 30
thick. The sands have an average permeability of 60 md and a
permeability range of 20 to 150 md (relative to oil). All sands
are unconsolidated.
Based on mechanical properties logs and direct micro-frac
stress testing5,6, it is apparent that there is no stress differential
between Lower Ranger shales and sands. Actual fracturing
results have shown5,7, however, that fractures in the Lower
Ranger do not exhibit excessive height growth. The limited
fracture height growth is thought to be the result of either: (1)
the unconsolidated nature of the Lower Ranger sands allowing
shear movement of the sand along sand-shale interfaces or (2)
the shales having high levels of toughness5 or anisotropy.
Either will inhibit transmitting a fracture from sands to shales.
Mechanical properties logs also indicate that the Lower
Ranger has a relatively low Youngs Modulus (E), ranging
from 600,000 psi to 1,000,000 psi depending on well location.
Well Design and Data Collection Process
Wells utilized in this study were designed to accomplish their
initial reservoir objective and, at the same time, allow
collection of meaningful fracturing data without introducing
excessive additional cost. Here, in a step-by-step fashion, are
the processes and analyses used in the initial drilling of a well
to the final evaluation of near-wellbore proppant distribution
resulting from the fracture stimulation. The same processes
and analyses were used for each of the 4 fracture stimulations
in the study.
First, and most importantly, each well was drilled
vertically through the zone intended to be fractured in order to
minimize the chance of the fracture diverging from the
wellbore. A vertical wellbore also prevents multiple fracture

SPE 56589

generation; the existence of which could easily complicate the

determination of the halos presence and extent.
Once the interval to be fractured is drilled and the usual
suite of resistivity logs is obtained, a mechanical properties
log is run. The mechanical properties log is run in
combination with a gyroscopic directional tool so that all
directionally dependent measurements are correlated to a true
north orientation. A primary piece of data pertinent to this
investigation is the expected direction of fracture propagation.
The mechanical properties log emits shear waves in all
directions and determines from which direction the returning
shear waves arrive first. Considering that shear waves travel
faster in rocks that are under greater stress, the direction from
which the shear waves first return to the logging tool indicates
the direction of maximum horizontal stress (i.e., the expected
direction of fracture propagation). Knowing the expected
fracture direction will be useful when perforating each well.
Next, casing is cemented across the zone of interest.
Adequate centralization of the casing is required to ensure a
good cement bond between the casing and formation. Areas
of poor cement bonding in the intervals to be fractured could
easily complicate the determination of the halos presence and
extent. After the cement has cured, an ultrasonic imager
cement bond mapping tool is used to map the cement bond
and ensure that no holidays or channels exist in the cement
sheath between the casing and formation. The ultrasonic
imager tool provides a discrete map of the cement bond, both
circumferentially and longitudinally, rather than averaging all
circumferential readings into one measurement like older-style
cement bond logging tools do. In this way, the ultrasonic
imager tool can positively identify any small cement voids or
channels, which could later complicate the analysis of nearwellbore proppant distribution. One well was excluded from
this study due to questionable cement bonding as indicated by
the ultrasonic imager tool.
Perforating the interval to be fractured is then
accomplished using tubing conveyed perforators with 1800
phased charges that are oriented in the expected direction of
fracture propagation as determined from the mechanical
properties log. Like the mechanical properties log, the
perforating guns are oriented using a gyroscopic directional
tool to ensure accurate perforation placement. Aligning all the
perforations with the direction of expected fracture
propagation minimizes any turning of the fracture immediately
adjacent to the wellbore. Any turning of the fracture adjacent
to the casing could be mistakenly identified as the generation
of a halo.
Afterwards, the perforations are broken down in 2
intervals using clean completion brine and a cup-type isolation
tool.
Breaking the perforations down in 2 intervals
minimizes the number of plugged perforations during the
fracture stimulation. This ensures that the resultant vertical
proppant distribution at the end of the frac job is not
influenced in any way by perforation plugging that may have
existed prior to the frac job.
The fracture stimulation is then pumped in a fashion7
necessary to obtain a tip screenout. The proppant in each job

SPE 56589

NEAR-WELLBORE HALO EFFECT RESULTING FROM TIP SCREENOUT FRACTURING:

ITS DIRECT MEASUREMENT AND IMPLICATION FOR SAND CONTROL

was traced with radioactive (RA) material. In each case, all

proppant was traced with Ir-192 in equal concentrations. All
proppant is resin-coated to hold the near-wellbore proppant in
place while the proppant remaining in the casing after the frac
job is being cleaned out.
The post-frac job cleanout of RCP from the casing is
performed using a bottom-hole assembly comprised of an
open-face drill bit with a casing scraper one joint above. Only
filtered brine is used during this process. All circulating
during the RCP cleanout process is in the reversing mode.
This ensures that as the drill bit loosens RCP particles, they
are immediately swept into the drill pipe and then into surface
holding tanks. This method prevents any of the RCP from
being strung out higher up in the wells casing, as might occur
if circulation were in the opposite direction. The open-face
drill bit does not have any of the usual fluid jets, but rather a
single large hole on its face. This prevents plugging of the bit
while in the reverse circulating mode. The outside diameter of
the casing scraper above the bit is equal to the drift diameter
of the casing. The tight diametrical clearance of the casing
scraper ensures that any RCP missed by the drill bit and still
attached to the casing wall is removed.
The final step in this process is to log the fracture
stimulated interval using a directional gamma ray (GR)
logging tool. The logging tool used here is run in tandem with
a gyroscopic directional tool so that all GR readings are
correlated with a true north orientation. The directional (or
azimuthal) GR tool uses a rotating lead sleeve possessing a
single slot to shield the tools sensor from gamma rays
arriving from all directions but one, the direction of the slot.
The size of the slot restricts gamma ray arrivals to a 400
window. Therefore, any tool reading at a single orientation
represents the gamma ray strength averaged over a 400
interval.
This detailed protocol for drilling and fracture stimulating
the 4 wells in this study was undertaken so that, once each
well was logged with the azimuthal GR tool, the detection of
any elevated gamma ray signals not aligned with the
perforations could, most certainly, be identified as the
formation of a halo outside of the casings cement sheath.
Project Results
The directional GR data collected for each well was processed
to provide a 3-D representation of proppant placement in the
near-wellbore region. The Post-Frac Azimuthal GR tract
shown in Figure 2 (after References) is an example of such a
3-D view. The tract presents the same data from 4 different
perspectives (i.e., North, East, South, and West). The distance
from a columns surface to its centerline represents the amount
of incoming gamma rays from that specific depth and
direction. For example, if gamma rays were not detected at
any depth and direction (purely hypothetical), then the view
you would see in Figure 2 would be 4 straight lines. However,
if the background gamma ray level were a constant value
greater than zero at all depths and directions, then the view

you would see in Figure 2 would be 4 perfect cylinders. The

diameter of the cylinders would increase proportionally with
increases in the background gamma ray level. The color
changes on the columns surface that coincide with increasing
displacement from the columns centerline are used only to
accentuate where increased levels of gamma radiation exist.
Areas where only background radiation is detected
(indicating no proppant placement) are represented by a
relatively thin column accompanied by a deep purple color. In
Figure 2, areas such as this occur around the entire wellbore at
approximately 2948-2952 MD. An example of background
radiation found on only one side of the wellbore occurs around
2985-2992. In this area, the North and East views show
elevated levels of gamma radiation, indicating that proppant
must be present. However, the South and West views show
that the other side of the wellbore has only background
radiation levels; thus, no proppant is present in that area.
Fracture Stimulation #1. In this frac job, 40700 lbs. of 20/40
RCP were placed outside the casing in an interval with a
Youngs modulus of E=600,000 psi. The job was pumped at
30 bpm and a maximum slurry density of 12 ppa was used.
As with all the frac jobs in this study, bottom-hole pressure
gauges were installed in the well. The gauges malfunctioned,
however, causing the loss of all bottom-hole pressure data.
Based on the negligible rise in the surface pumping pressure
during this job, we are confident that a TSO was not attained.
Although no bottom-hole pressure data is available, the netpressure (Pnet) at the end of the job can be estimated using
surface pressure data. Fluids of equal density were in the well
at the time of measuring fracture closure pressure (Pc) during
the data-frac and at the time the initial shut-in pressure (ISIP)
was measured at the end of the frac job. Therefore a close
estimate of Pnet at the end of the frac job is
Pnet = ISIP - Pc . ..(1)
In this case, ISIP=2520 psi and Pc=2300 psi, which results in
Pnet=220 psi. This net-pressure is relatively low when
compared to other fracture stimulations that positively attained
TSOs. We can, therefore, confidently conclude that this well
did not attain a TSO during the fracture stimulation.
Figure 2 shows the proppant placement results for this frac
job. The job was pumped through 60 of perforations that
were shot across a sand interval from 2944-2955, a shale
interval from 2955-2970, and another sand interval starting
at 2970 and continuing below the perforations (as indicated
by the Pre-Frac GR tract to the right of Figure 2). The
azimuthal GR readings indicate that a halo fully formed from
2960-2980 (mostly in the shaley section of the perforations),
partially formed from 2980-3008, and did not form above
2955.
It is concluded from this test that a halo can form with a
relatively low Pnet. The halos formation, however, is not
complete across the entire perforated interval. Thus, this

E. R. UPCHURCH

completion may be susceptible to producing sand if a gravel

pack is not installed. Production testing of this zone5 prior to
gravel packing confirmed that sand production will occur if a
gravel pack is not installed.

Net Pressure (psi)

5000

30 bpm throughout

2000
1000
500

TSO

200
0.20

0.50 1.0

2.0

5.0

10

20

50

Pump time (minutes)

5000

Net Pressure (psi)

Fracture Stimulation #2. In this frac job, 59000 lbs. of 20/40

RCP were placed outside the casing in an interval with a
Youngs modulus of E=600,000 psi. The job was pumped at
28 bpm and a maximum slurry density of 10 ppa was used.
As indicated in Figure 3, a TSO was attained and Pnet was
built to 690 psi. Figure 4 (after References) shows the
proppant placement results for this frac job. The job was
pumped through 59 of perforations that were shot across a
relatively clean sand interval containing minor shale breaks.
The azimuthal GR readings indicate that a halo fully formed
only at the bottom of the perforations (3160-3168). This was
unexpected, considering that the fractured zone is relatively
clean compared to Fracture Stimulation #1 and that triple the
net-pressure was built.
It is concluded from this test that the halos formation (like
Fracture Stimulation #1) is not complete across the entire
perforated interval, even at a significantly higher Pnet obtained
via a TSO.

SPE 56589

2000
1000
500

Reduce rate from

30 to 14 bpm
at t = 7.2 minutes

200

10

20

50

100

TSO
200

500

Volume Injected (bbls)

Fig. 5-Fracture Stimulation #3 net-pressure plot.

Fracture Stimulation #4. In this frac job, 70000 lbs. of 20/40

RCP were placed outside the casing in an interval with a
Youngs modulus of E=600,000 psi. A maximum slurry
density of 10 ppa was used. The job was initially pumped at
30 bpm until the 10 ppa slurry reached the perforations. Then
the pump rate was reduced to 15 bpm to induce a TSO. As
indicated in Figure 7, a TSO was attained and Pnet was built to
1050 psi (the highest Pnet of the 4 frac jobs in this study). The
slope of the net-pressure plot is m=2, which indicates that only
one wing of the fracture is inflating. The reduction in pump
rate may have caused a near-wellbore proppant bridge in one
of the fracture wings, resulting in the inflation of only one
wing. Figure 8 (after References) shows the proppant
placement results for this frac job. The job was pumped
through 64 of perforations that were shot across a clean sand
interval containing minor shale breaks. This is the cleanest
sand interval of the 4 wells included in this study. The
azimuthal GR readings indicate a full halo formation in the top
1/4 of the perforations, partial halo formation in the next
deeper 1/4, and no halo formation in the bottom 1/2 of the
perforations.

Fig. 3-Fracture Stimulation #2 net-pressure plot.

5000

Net Pressure (psi)

Fracture Stimulation #3. In this frac job, 80000 lbs. of 20/40

RCP were placed outside the casing in an interval with a
Youngs modulus of E=700,000 psi. A maximum slurry
density of 10 ppa was used. The job was initially pumped at
30 bpm until the 10 ppa slurry reached the perforations. Then
the pump rate was reduced to 14 bpm to induce a TSO. As
indicated in Figure 5, a TSO was attained and Pnet was built to
460 psi. Figure 6 (after References) shows the proppant
placement results for this frac job. The job was pumped
through 64 of perforations that were shot across 3 lobes of
clean sand interval sandwiching 2 more shaley intervals at
2718-2722 and 2746-2752. The azimuthal GR readings
indicate a halo formation that is more consistent than those
seen in Fracture Stimulations #1 and #2. The halo, though,
did not fully form across the entire perforated interval. Only
partial halos were formed in the top 8 of the perforations
(2698-2706) and at 2744-2751.

2000
1000
500

Reduce rate from

30 to 15 bpm
at t = 8 minutes

200

10

20

50

100

Volume Injected (bbls)

Fig. 7-Fracture Stimulation #4 net-pressure plot.

TSO

200

500

SPE 56589

NEAR-WELLBORE HALO EFFECT RESULTING FROM TIP SCREENOUT FRACTURING:

ITS DIRECT MEASUREMENT AND IMPLICATION FOR SAND CONTROL

Conclusions
1. Formation of a halo does occur when fracturing soft
formations (even at low net-pressures).
2. Formation of a halo, for the tests presented here, is not
consistent. Furthermore, the magnitude of net-pressure does
not seem to have an effect on the halos consistency.
3. Vertical coverage of the perforated intervals by a halo
does not appear to be sensitive to the magnitude of netpressure.
4. In Fracture Stimulation #4, perforations that were
definitely unplugged (broken down before the frac using brine,
as described in Well Design and Data Collection Process)
and shot across clean sands did not accept any RCP. Filling
the perforations with RCP is a bare minimum for providing
sand control in the absence of a halo formation.
5. Halo formation should not be relied upon as a method
of sand control in soft formations with perforation intervals of
similar length (~60) to those presented here.
Summary Comments
It should be noted that all the wells presented in this paper
were subsequently gravel packed before being put on
production. The data presented here clearly supports the
conclusion that TSO fracturing with RCP is not an adequate
method for controlling sand production for the perforation
lengths used in this study. However, this does not mean that
the technique would be unsuccessful if applied to shorter
perforation intervals. Fracturing through a shorter interval
might enhance formation of the halo and would certainly
increase the chance of all perforations being filled with RCP.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Thums Long Beach Company for their
support of this work. Thanks are also due David Sharbak and
Carlos Silva of Halliburton for all their assistance in obtaining
and processing the azimuthal gamma ray measurements
presented here.
Nomenclature
E =
ppa =
Pc
Pnet

=
=

Youngs modulus, psi

Lbs. of proppant added per gallon of
carrying fluid
Fracture closure pressure, psi
Fracture net-pressure at wellbore, psi

References
1. Fletcher, P.A., Montgomery, C.T., Ramos, G.G., Miller, M.E.,
Rich, D.A., Guillory, R.J., and Francis, M.J.: Using Fracturing
as a Technique for Controlling Formation Failure, SPE
Production and Facilities, May 1996, pp. 117-121.
2. Bale, A., Owren, K. and Smith, M.B.: Propped Fracturing as a
Tool for Sand Control and Reservoir Management, paper SPE
24992 presented at the 1992 SPE European Petroleum
Conference, Cannes, Nov. 16-18.
3. Wedman, M.L., Lynch, K.W., Spearman, J.W.: Hydraulic
Fracturing for Sand Control in Unconsolidated Heavy-Oil

4.

5.

6.

7.

Reservoirs, paper SPE 54628 presented at the 1999 SPE Western

Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 26-28, May.
Putra, P.H., Nasution, R.D., Thurston, F.K., Moran, J.H., and
Malone B.P.: TSO Frac-Packing: Pilot Evaluation to Full-Scale
Operations in A Shallow Unconsolidated Heavy Oil Reservoir,
paper SPE 37533 presented at the 1997 SPE International
Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakersfield,
California, 10-12, February.
Upchurch, E.R., Montgomery, C.T., Berman, B.H., and Rael,
E.L.: A Systematic Approach to Developing Engineering Data
for Fracturing Poorly Consolidated Formations, paper SPE
38588 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5-8, October.
Katahara, K.W., Lynch, K.W., Keck, R.G.: A Semi-Empirical
Model of the In-Situ Stress Distribution for a Strike-Slip Regime:
the Long Beach Unit, California, paper SPE 29602 presented at
the 1995 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 20-22, March.
Upchurch, E.R.: Flexible, Real-Time Tip-Screenout Fracturing
Technique as Applied in California and Alaska, paper SPE
54629 presented at the 1999 SPE Western Regional Meeting,
Anchorage, Alaska, 26-28, May.

Conversion Factors
acre x 4.046 856
bbl x 1.589 991
o
F
(oF-32)/1.8
ft x 3.048*
gal x 3.785 412
lbm x 4.535 924
md x 9.869 233
psi x 6.894 757

E-01
E-01
E-01
E-03
E-01
E-04
E+00

*Conversion factor is exact.

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

ha
m3
o
C
m
m3
kg
m2
kPa

E. R. UPCHURCH

2950

2960

2970

2980

2990

3000

Pre-Frac GR

100% sand line

2940

Post-Frac Azimuthal GR

Perforations @ 1 spf & 180 o phasing (53.8 o & 233.8 o azimuth)

Measured Depth

SPE 56589

3010
North East South West
Fig. 2-Fracture Stimulation #1 proppant placement results.

100% shale line

NEAR-WELLBORE HALO EFFECT RESULTING FROM TIP SCREENOUT FRACTURING:

ITS DIRECT MEASUREMENT AND IMPLICATION FOR SAND CONTROL

3120

3130

3140

3150

3160

Pre-Frac GR

100% sand line

3110

Post-Frac Azimuthal GR

3170
North East South West
Fig. 4-Fracture Stimulation #2 proppant placement results.

100% shale line

Measured Depth

Perforations @ 4 spf & 180 o phasing (13.8 o & 193.8 o azimuth)

SPE 56589

E. R. UPCHURCH

2740

2750

2760
North East South West
Fig. 6-Fracture Stimulation #3 proppant placement results.

100% shale line

2730

100% sand line

2720

Pre-Frac GR

2710

Perforations @ 4 spf & 180

2700

Post-Frac Azimuthal GR

phasing (13.8 o & 193.8 o azimuth)

Measured Depth

SPE 56589

NEAR-WELLBORE HALO EFFECT RESULTING FROM TIP SCREENOUT FRACTURING:

ITS DIRECT MEASUREMENT AND IMPLICATION FOR SAND CONTROL

Measured Depth

Post-Frac Azimuthal GR

Pre-Frac GR

2940

2950
2960

2970

2980

2990

100% sand line

2930

North East South West

Fig. 8-Fracture Stimulation #4 proppant placement results.

100% shale line

2920

Perforations @ 4 spf & 180 o phasing (13.8 o & 193.8 o azimuth)

SPE 56589