throbber
C a s e H i s t o r y
`
`FracPoint Completion System Isolated
`Openhole Horizontal Well in Lower Huron Shale
`Technology overcame wellbore obstacles
`
`Benefi ts
`  Increased production rates
`  Lowered operational cost
` – Eliminated coiled tubing operations
` – Eliminated cementing operations
` – Eliminated wireline operations
` – Reduced pumping time
`
`Background and challenges
`  Lower Huron Shale, Kentucky
`  Provide increased production
`associated with multistage hydraulic
`fracturing while reducing cost
`  Needed to complete well after drillstring
`caught fire and had to be left downhole
`  Needed to overcome wellbore
`obstacles caused by downhole fire
`
`Baker Hughes solution and results
`  Included FracPoint multistage
`fracturing system using hydraulic-
`set openhole packers, including
`one that was set in casing for
`additional isolation
`  Used ball-activated frac sleeves and
`pressure-activated sleeve (P-sleeve)
`  Successfully deployed a FracPoint
`completion and salvaged the well
`  Successfully fractured an eight-
`stage FracPoint system
`
`The Baker Hughes FracPoint™ multistage
`fracturing system provided a completion
`method using packers to isolate sections
`of the wellbore (stages) and frac sleeves
`to direct the frac treatment to the desired
`stage. The use of this type of completion
`eliminated the need for cementing the
`liner, coiled tubing operations, and
`wireline operations, while signifi cantly
`reducing overall pumping time.
`
`This particular setup was a long liner
`string back to surface, so a casing hanger
`packer was not needed. To provide extra
`protection while fracturing, a hydraulic-set
`openhole packer was set in the vertical
`
`intermediate casing. Even though the
`primary application of the FracPoint
`tool is for openhole, the system can
`also be used for isolation in a cased-
`hole environment.
`
`Before installing the FracPoint system,
`the operator had a downhole fi re while
`drilling (air-drilled hole) and lost a portion
`of the drillstring. The landing depth of the
`well had to be cut short and the wellbore
`had been damaged. After the operator
`expressed their concerns about reaching
`setting depth with the completion, it was
`decided to try to complete the well as
`planned, minus the depth lost.
`
`1 of 2
`
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2016-01496
`
`

`
`While installing the system, the bottom of the tool string started
`having difficulty moving up or down the hole approximately
`1,500 ft (457.2 m) from the setting depth because of the wellbore
`damage the fire had caused. The Baker Hughes personnel on
`location recommended stopping and circulating around the
`system to clean up the debris surrounding it. After pumping a
`foam sweep for three hours, the debris was determined to be
`cleared by watching the returns from circulating. The string was
`picked up again and was free to move. To ensure the string made
`it to setting depth, the foam was circulated while running in the
`hole, and the tool string was reciprocated as needed. The tool
`string was landed at the intended setting depth, and was hung
`on the wellhead.
`
`The pumping crew then rigged up. Because there was no fluid
`in the string, 5 bbls (0.6 m3) of water were pumped first. A
`setting ball was dropped downhole immediately following, and
`
`the ball was circulated down to the ball seat sub with water. The
`appropriate amount of pressure was applied to set the hydraulically
`actuated openhole packers, including the one in the casing. At this
`point, the rig was moved to the next location and the frac job could
`commence at the operator’s discretion.
`
`Five weeks later the fracturing crew was called out to location and
`the fracturing began. The P-sleeve was opened first by simply applying
`pressure, and the first frac was performed. Once the frac was complete
`for this stage, the ball corresponding to the second stage was dropped
`into the flow path without shutting down the pumping operation.
`When the ball seated for the second stage, pressure was applied to
`open the sleeve and the second fracture was started. This process was
`repeated until all eight stages were fractured. All eight stages of the
`FracPoint multistage fracturing system were successfully fractured,
`averaging a surface pressure of 3,600 psi (248 bar). The operator was
`impressed with the FracPoint system’s ability to salvage the well.
`
`www.bakerhughes.com
`Disclaimer of Liability: This information is provided for general information purposes only and is believed to be accurate as of the date hereof; however, Baker Hughes Incorporated and its affiliates do
`not make any warranties or representations of any kind regarding the information and disclaim all express and implied warranties or representations to the fullest extent permissible by law, including
`those of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or use, title, non-infringement, accuracy, correctness or completeness of the information provided herein. All information is furnished “as is”
`and without any license to distribute. The user agrees to assume all liabilities related to the use of or reliance on such information. BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED AND ITS AFFILIATES SHALL NOT BE
`LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FROM ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ITS NEGLIGENCE.
`
`© 2011 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All rights reserved. 31150
`
`2 of 2

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket