Chapter 18: Refracturing

Hydraulic fracturing has evolved over the years and has seen much success. However, not all hydraulic-fracturing treatments have been successful. Inadequate completion techniques, nonoptimized designs, misused or inadequate diversion technology, or misunderstandings about the subject formations can lead to failures. Even if the design has been optimized, long-term degradation of the fracture conductivity and other factors can lead to damage and reduced productivity from the wells. Such conditions might require the recompletion of the wells after their primary stimulations.

The term refracturing has been used inconsistently in the industry, and recompletions frequently have been erroneously classified as refractures or refracturing. It is important to correctly understand the terminology. Gullickson et al. (2016) categorized recompletions as remediation, re-entry, or refracturing treatments, with clear differentiations between each. While remediation is the accessing of additional pay that was previously unstimulated because of mechanical issues, the definition of re-entry from Gullickson et al. (2016) is limited to wellbores that were stimulated open hole in the primary treatment and then were cased and restimulated. There, the term refracturing is strictly tied to a secondary fracture treatment performed by (a) bullheading the treatment with or without retrievable mechanical isolation or (b) cementing a liner inside the production casing and completing it like a new well. Elbel et al. (2018) and Cadotte et al. (2018) presented successful casing-in-casing refracturing treatments from the Haynesville and Eagle Ford formations; these treatments were considered refracturing and not re-entry.