SPE-199712-MS

Evaluating Limited Entry Perforating & Diverter Completion Techniques with

Ultrasonic Perforation Imaging & Fiber Optic DTS Warmbacks

Chase Murphree and Malcolm Kintzing, SM Energy; Stephen Robinson, DarkVision; Jay Sepehri, Halliburton

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 4-6 February
2020.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The objective of this project was to evaluate extreme, limited-entry perforating and particulate diverter
completion techniques with ultrasonic perforation imaging and distributed temperature sensing (DTS). The
scope of this project includes multiple, Midland Basin, horizontal wells completed with varied completion
designs. Ultrasonic images of the perforations were obtained prior to fracturing and post-fracturing to
observe erosion patterns of each design. Fiber optic DTS warmbacks gathered temperature profiles of each
wellbore after stimulation to quantify fracture initiation points (FIP) of each design.
Perforation imaging results showed that all perforation clusters were eroded. This indicates that all
clusters of perforations received some amount of treatment fluid and proppant. The data collected also
suggest that perforation erosion occurs quickly, and the rate of perforation erosion decreases dramatically
after a critical mass of proppant is pumped through the perforations, potentially negating high perforation
friction designs early in the stage. Despite all clusters showing some level of perforation erosion, fiber optic
DTS warmback data only showed fracture initiation points for ∼70% of the clusters (cluster efficiency of
70%). This data suggests that multiple clusters could be receiving fluid and proppant while contributing to
a single fracture network and not creating a unique, dominate fracture for each perforation cluster. Another
possibility is that although some clusters were receiving treatment slurry, the amount of stimulation was not
sufficient to create and sustain a major fracture.
The data gathered in this project should change conventional thought processes on a number of subjects
including perforation erosion, limited-entry, diverters, proppant placement, fracture growth, and DTS
interpretations.

Introduction
The primary challenge of modern day completion design in unconventional wells is equally distributing
fluid and proppant into all perforation clusters of a single frac stage. A secondary challenge is stimulating
as long of a frac stage as possible without sacrificing uniform frac distribution and production performance.
Tremendous amounts of cost savings and risk mitigation can be had by increasing stage spacing, but how
long is too long before variable distribution of frac slurry begins negatively affecting rate of return? The
2 SPE-199712-MS

scope of this paper looks to answer this question by evaluating various completion design techniques with
industry-accepted diagnostic tools on several horizontal wells in the Midland Basin Lower Spraberry and
Wolfcamp A formations. The challenges and questions this project looked to answer are listed below. The
key observations and conclusions are also listed below.

Questions.

• What is the optimal amount of initial perforation friction to design in a frac stage?

• Can extreme limited-entry perforating be used to enhance the number of clusters stimulated or
provide a more uniform frac distribution?
• Can particulate diverting agents be deployed to enhance the amount of clusters stimulated or
provide a more uniform frac distribution?
○ When should diverters be deployed? How much diverter should be deployed?

• Can either limited-entry perforating or diverter be used to increase stage spacing without sacrificing
well performance?
Conclusions.

• Stage spacing increased 25% with no evidence of performance degradation

• Optimal initial perforation friction is 2,000-3,000 psi (Cd = 0.7)

• Equal-entry hole perforating charges performed as advertised

• Intrastage diverter drops do not create new fracture initiation points, but can effectively redistribute
fluid and proppant among active clusters
• Warmback data and perforation erosion data show no correlation indicating that perforation erosion
does not always result in fracture creation
• Perforation erosion happens quickly with no strong correlations to proppant volume

• Wellbore trajectory and inclination appear to be a factor in proppant placement

• Perforation phasing did not affect pre-frac perforation diameters or proppant placement in this data
set
• Frac plugs can create breaches in casing during treatment if a proper seal is not obtained

Background Information & Design

The primary goals of this study were to evaluate extreme, limited-entry perforating and diverter completion
techniques and whether these strategies could be used to enhance completion effectiveness and/or increase
stage spacing without sacrificing well performance.
The data sets presented in this study consists of Midland Basin horizontal wells in the Wolfcamp A and
Lower Spraberry formations. The wells contained varied completion designs across the laterals in groups
of stages. In these wells, it was important to repeat groups of these designs across the horizontal to account
for geological variation, wellbore trajectory, and heel-toe bias (within the wellbore, not within the stage).
Different stage spacing designs were tested ranging from the original completion design to 25% longer
stages. Cluster spacing was held constant to control the number of changing variables.

Extreme Limited-Entry Perforating

Extreme limited-entry perforating has been well documented as a method to maximize completion
effectiveness across many clusters in a single stage (Weddle 2018). It is a fairly well-known technique in
SPE-199712-MS 3

which the number of perforations or the diameter of perforations in a frac stage are reduced to increase
the pressure drop across the perf clusters. This pressure drop limits the ability of fluid to flow into each
hole, thereby forcing a more uniform distribution of flow rate into each perforation. The referenced pressure
drop, often referred to as perforation friction, is calculated using Bernoulli's theorem displayed in Equation
1 below.

(1)

      Equation 1 – Bernoulli's Theorem for Pressure Drop across an Orifice

Ppf = Perforation friction (psi)
ΔPp = Pressure drop across perforations (psi)
Q = Flow rate (bbl/min)
ρ = Fluid density (lb/gal)
Np = Number of perforations
Dp = Perforation diameter (in.)
Cd = Discharge Coefficient
The perforation pressure drop in these tests was controlled by varying perforation diameter and total
number of perforations. Small changes to these variables have great impacts on the value of perforation
friction as diameter (Dp) is raised to the 4th power and number of perforations (Np) is raised to the 2nd power.
To illustrate the sensitivities of these variables further, see Figure 1 below. It shows the pressure drop across
perforations as a function of perforation diameter, Dp. Each of the different lines represents a different
number of perforations, Np, in a given stage. The figure assumes a discharge coefficient, Cd, of 0.7 and rate,
Q, of 100 bpm. On the Np = 32 line, the calculated perforation friction is ∼3,000 psi at 0.34" and ∼4,900
psi at 0.30". This is a 60% difference in pressure drop for just a 13% change in perf diameter.

Figure 1—Perforation diameter sensitivities for pressure drop calculations assuming

Cd of 0.7 and Q of 100 bpm. Each line represents a different number of perforations, Np.

In the completion tests of this study, designs were trialed with initial perforation frictions ranging from
1,000 psi to 6,000 psi (Cd = 0.7). The number of perforations per cluster was varied from two shots/cluster
4 SPE-199712-MS

to four shots/cluster, but no less than two perforations per cluster were utilized to prevent production of a
section of lateral being dependent on the flow path of one hole in the casing.
For the limited-entry designs, equal-entry hole perforating charges were utilized in order to have
consistent pressure drops across all perf clusters in each stage. As discussed before, it's critical to have
consistent and precise perforation diameters for this completion technique, as small changes in diameter can
have large impacts on the value of perforation friction. Three different charges from three different major
charge manufacturers were trialed.

Diverting Agents
Diverting agents are bridging material that are often utilized in completions to temporarily seal off
perforation clusters, tunnels, and near-wellbore fractures and redirect fluid and proppant elsewhere. Diverter
was utilized in this study in an effort to provide a more uniform distribution of fluid and proppant across
clusters and/or to maximize the number of stimulated clusters in a given stage, or increase stage spacing
without sacrificing FIP's. This completion method has been documented by previous papers as having been
successfully used to increase fracture initiation points (Weddle 2017) and increase stage spacing without
sacrificing performance (Harpel 2018).
The material used is a blend of beads and powder made out of Polylactide (PLA) biopolymers, commonly
referred to in the industry as PLA Diverter. With time and elevated temperatures in water, these polymers
degrade into an aqueous solution effectively removing the temporary seal. In theory, the diverters will block
off areas of flow that are taking the most fluid and proppant and redistribute the frac slurry into areas that
have been under-stimulated or not stimulated at all. Figure 2 below shows a sample of the PLA diverter that
was tested. The PLA is a bead and powder blend ranging in mesh sizes from 8 mesh to fine powder.

Figure 2—PLA Diverter Example

In modern-day, unconventional completions with diverter, the diverter is often deployed in the middle of
a frac stage dividing fracture treatments into cycles of proppant ramps. Portions of frac stages completed
with diverter in this manner are often referred to as "Cycles". For example, a frac stage with one diverter
drop would have two different cycles. Cycle 1 is pumped, diverter is dropped, and Cycle 2 is pumped.
SPE-199712-MS 5

It's important to monitor the performance of the diverter to ensure the desired effects are achieved, and
that the PLA is not just passing through the perforation clusters into the formation. Diversion effectiveness
is often measured by the magnitude of pressure increase as diverter hits the perforations as shown in Figure 3
below. Another sign of effective diversion is the treating pressure trends in succeeding cycles after a diverter
drop. Specifically, a new breakdown pressure should be observed with likely higher treating pressures in
post-diverter cycles. The new breakdown pressure can be indicative of creating more near-wellbore fracture
systems, and a higher treating pressure is a sign that diverter has successfully blocked off flow paths of
the stage.

Figure 3—Diverter Frac Stage Treatment Plot

Diverter loadings necessary for effective diversion can be affected by a number of factors including,
but not limited to, perforation diameter, number of perforations, number of clusters, geology, and cement
quality. Typically, conservative diverter loadings are used in the toe stages of a horizontal well and optimized
in succeeding stages.
For the completion tests in this study, some groups of stages were pumped with diverter, and some groups
of stages were pumped without it for a baseline to compare the fiber optic warmback and perforation erosion
data.
For this study, diverter was launched at full rate after proppant was flushed past the wellhead on surface.
Rate was lowered to ∼30% of design rate as the diverter approached the perforations. This reduced rate
strategy serves two purposes. First, it allows more room for diversion pressure to increase without reaching
max allowable treating pressure. Second, in theory, only the dominant clusters should be taking fluid at the
lower rate, allowing the diverter to bridge off these areas of the stage and redistribute the proppant laden fluid
to under-stimulated clusters. Figure 4 below shows an annotated treatment plot example of this operation.
6 SPE-199712-MS

Figure 4—Diverter Deployment Overview

Optimal diverter drop timing was also tested with two different deployment methods. First, some stages
were pumped with 50% of the treatment in Cycle 1, a diverter drop, and 50% in Cycle 2. In the second
strategy, Cycle 1 was pumped with 67% of the treatment with the remaining 33% pumped in Cycle 2.

Fiber Optics DTS Warmback

Fiber optic technology has gained a lot of attention in oil and gas industry in the recent years. Due to
its simplicity, being relatively low-cost and versatile applications, Fiber Optic Sensing can be used to
evaluate well completion effectiveness. Fiber Optic Distributed Temperature/Acoustic Sensing (DTS/DAS)
has enabled oil and gas operators to gain a better insight on how changing completion variables can help
improve completion of multistage hydraulic fracturing treatments.
Fiber optic lines can be installed permanently (outside of production casing) or can be run in retrievable
mode (on wireline or inside coil tubing string) to monitor downhole temperature and acoustic conditions
(Sahdev 2016). In these data sets, fiber optic cable was deployed on coil tubing after the completion of
stages and drillout of frac plugs. Warmback analysis was then performed on DTS data obtained post fracture
treatment. The goal of this process is to identify the depth along the wellbore where there are signs of a
significant cool down as a result of fracture treatment. These depths, referred to as Fracture Initiation Points
or FIPs, are associated with created hydraulic fractures (Natareno 2019).
Injection of large volume of fracturing fluid into a formation creates a major drop in the formation initial
temperature. The temperature drop occurs along the entire depth of wellbore. Wellbore start to warmback
soon after the fracturing treatment stops. However, it may take several months for the formation around
the wellbore to gradually warmback to close to initial temperature. The rate of warmback at different depth
varies depending on the initial formation temperature and duration of time that has been in contact with
fracturing fluid. Since the treatment fluid that exits the perforation, generates a cool down in the fracture and
areas around the fracture depth, these areas remain cooler than the neighboring depths along the wellbore.
Figure 5 shows an example of temperature traces of a stage and the Fracture Initiation Points identified from
SPE-199712-MS 7

a fiber optic warmback analysis. In this example, warmback analysis identified 9 FIPs for the stage with
11 perforations clusters, resulting in a cluster efficiency of approximately 82%. To account for variation in
stage length, number of FIPs are usually normalized by stage length and reported as number of FIP/1,000'
of lateral.

Figure 5—Temperature traces gathered on a fiber optic warmback for a stage.

Warmback Results
The limits of extreme, limited entry perforating were tested in this study by adjusting the diameter of
perforations or the number of perforations in the stage, and Figure 6 shows no added value for completion
designs with more than 2,000-3,000 psi (Cd = 0.7) of perforation friction. Designs up to 5,500 psi of initial
perforation friction were tested, but these extreme designs appear to be adding unnecessary treating pressure
to the stages. This can lead to higher average pressures and more chemical usage for no added benefit. Based
on this information, the optimal initial perforation friction design appears to be 3,000 psi.
8 SPE-199712-MS

Figure 6—Fracture initiation points per 1,000' of lateral vs. binned (1,000 psi increments) perforation friction designs (Cd=0.7)

Near-wellbore diverting agents did not increase fracture initiation points on average compared to stages
pumped without diverter as shown in Figure 7. There were indications with surface treating pressure as well
as erosion analysis discussed later in this paper that frac fluid was effectively redistributed with the diverter,
but it is not creating new fractures or stimulating new clusters that were not previously being stimulated
according to warmback data.

Figure 7—Average fracture initiation points per 1,000' of lateral for stages pumped with and without PLA diverting agents.
SPE-199712-MS 9

Figure 8 shows that FIP/1,000' on average was held constant or increased with longer stage spacing
utilizing limited-entry and diverting agents. "X" represents the base stage spacing that was utilized on many
wells prior to this testing. With one of the primary goals of expanding stage spacing, designs with 17% and
25% longer stage spacing were also tested, represented by "1.17x" and "1.25x" respectively.

Figure 8—Average fracture initiation points normalized per 1,000' of lateral for different stage spacing designs.

The warmback data presented is comprised of 450 stages on 9 wells with 10 different completion designs.
The conclusions from this work are listed below:

• Optimal initial perforation friction pressure found to be 2,000-3,000 psi (Cd=0.7)

• Near-wellbore diverting agents are not a significant driver in stimulating new clusters
○ Erosion data presented in the next section suggests diverter may be redistributing fluid and
proppant among active clusters

• Stage spacing was increased by 25% with no indication of performance degradation in fiber optic
warmback data

Ultrasonic Perforation Imaging

A new type of solid-state acoustic imaging technology has been developed for high-resolution imaging
inside horizontal wells, with the objective of imaging entire wellbores at sub-mm levels of resolution in a
single continuous pass. One important application of this technology is to evaluate and measure perforation
size and erosion within horizontal wells. The technology uses a large number of individual transducers
that are shaped in the form of a conical array. The conical array performs a 360-degree continuous scan of
the inside of the wellbore as it passes through the well. The conical array supports between 384 and 512
individual transducers that are each oriented at a slightly oblique angle to the axis of the tool. Figure 9 below
shows this configuration and how the array is configured and oriented in the tool itself.
10 SPE-199712-MS

Figure 9—Tool configuration showing array shape and orientation with 384-512 transducers.

The transducers are used in banks of sub-arrays to create an aperture that typically comprises between
16-64 individual transducers. Transducers within a sub-array work together in unison to create a unified and
cohesive wave front that has a single point of focus, and is the result of the superposition of the signal from
each of the individual transducers. Each individual transducer sends out a pressure pulse that is effectively
a circular wave that propagates in 3-dimensional space. The timing of each individual transducer can be
controlled electronically within the sub-array such that the individual pulses overlap and constructively
interfere at a specific desired location. That location can be chosen and manipulated entirely by changing
the timing when each individual transducer is fired. This is controlled by software and firmware, making
the focal point of the array a dynamic variable that can be changed in real-time automatically as the tool
becomes decentralized, or as the casing deforms or ovals. This also allows for very precise control of the
acoustic beam with the ability to dynamically focus and fine-tune the focus automatically as well conditions
and tool geometry change throughout the well. Figure 10 below shows this ability to create a focal point
using a smaller array of 7 transducers.

Figure 10—Diagram showing focusing of signal to a single point using delay offsets controlled by software.

The beam itself can also be "steered", to not only change the focus, but to also create the effect that the
pulses themselves are originating from a virtual location. For example, should the tool be decentralized, the
acoustic waves can be timed to create the appearance and effect that the overall waveform still originates
SPE-199712-MS 11

from the center of the casing. This again can be controlled and changed simply by modifying the timing of
the individual transducer pulses in software. This is best illustrated below in Figure 11 and Figure 12.

Figure 11—Diagram showing the ability to "steer" the acoustic

beam, creating the appearance it is traveling at an arbitrary angle.

Figure 12—Compensation beam forming for tool decentralization, changing the angle and focal point simultaneously.

The technology is able to be used in a wide variety of applications, particularly where high-resolution
and detailed information of the well conditions is desirable. In general, the technology can be used to image
details of the internal casing structure, including measuring internal corrosion, erosion, cracks, ovality,
deformation, sand, scale, ports and holes. The technology is also capable of measuring and imaging features
on the outside of the casing, including external corrosion, erosion, wall loss, cracks and details of threaded
connections.
Below are some examples of scans from the lab that show the level of detail that is possible. In the first
example, a test jig with known features of specific sizes is imaged and compared to the results obtained
using a CT scan from an industrial X-ray scanner. The other examples are more qualitative but serve to
highlight the detail from intricate features that can be imaged.
12 SPE-199712-MS

Figure 13—Test sample with various features of known dimensions

Figure 14—CT Scan of Test Sample

Figure 15—CT Scan (left) and Ultrasonic Imaging Scan (Right)

SPE-199712-MS 13

Figure 16—Comparison of Ultrasonic Scan to Handheld Vernier Caliper Measurements

Figure 17—CT Scan (left) and Ultrasonic Imaging Scan (Right)

Due to its high resolution capability, the technology is particularly well suited for measuring the details
of perforation erosion. In this application, the imaging tool is deployed on wireline and tractor, or on coiled-
tubing to the toe of the well to image and measure perforation sizes after fracturing and stimulation. The
system is able to scan up to 20,000 ft of a horizontal wellbore in a single pass at resolution levels of 0.25mm
(0.010") using logging speeds of 20-30 ft/min. The objective is to measure and quantify each perforation's
exit hole diameter and compare how that diameter has increased during the fracturing stimulation process
due to erosion. This erosional information is then used to determine how much each perforation was
stimulated and how consistently and evenly a particular stage was treated. Because the system is performing
a 360 degree scan of the entire wellbore, other problems such as casing damage, deformations, breaches
and erosional patterns will also be imaged during the same scan.
Below is a test jig that was constructed for lab testing showing a wide variety of different hole sizes
ranging from 0.10" to 0.80" in diameter. The holes were machined through the casing at both perpendicular
and 45 degree angles. This sample was scanned in the lab using the acoustic imaging technology to
14 SPE-199712-MS

measure the diameter of each hole. The results were then compared to the results obtained from handheld
measurements using a digital Vernier caliper in Figure 19 below.

Figure 18—Test sample with various hole sizes for lab testing and measurement validation

Figure 19—Test results from comparison of handheld caliper measurements

to scan measurements of various hole sizes showed a mean error on 0.09mm

The original goal of the perforation imaging entailed scanning a stage of perforations before and after a
frac stage several times. Pre-frac scans were successfully obtained with no issues. After wireline set the plug
and perforated for a new stage, the imaging tool was deployed on wireline with tractor just above the plug
depth, and pre-frac images of the perforations were obtained. Post-frac scans proved to be more difficult
to obtain. On initial attempts, flush volumes were increased to a casing capacity plus 300 bbl of 20# linear
gel overflush. Proppant buildup stopped the tool from successfully imaging perforations past the heel-most
cluster even with these large overflush volumes with viscous fluid. Figure 20 below shows a cross-sectional
view of the tool position in the wellbore with proppant level almost covering the tool entirely.
SPE-199712-MS 15

Figure 20—Cross-sectional view of proppant buildup in unsuccessful post-frac scan attempt

Post-frac perforation images were successfully obtained with wireline and tractor on three different wells
after the drillout/cleanout of the frac plugs. Overall, 87% of perforations were imaged with 13% being
unable to image due to proppant buildup or a fluid column/interface.
To obtain pre-frac images more simply on future projects, it would be advisable to shoot perforations
at the very heel of the wellbore and not stimulate them. This would enable the operator to obtain pre-frac
data as well as post-frac data in one run after the drillout. It would also be advisable to scan a stage of
perforations per perforating charge used. On succeeding projects with the same perforating charge, no pre-
frac scans would be necessary since the results would likely be similar.

Casing Breaches at Plug Depths

During the perforation imaging process, unexpected casing breaches were observed at 16% of the frac plug
depths. Figure 21 shows an example of one of these breaches.
16 SPE-199712-MS

Figure 21—Casing breach at a frac plug location

These casing breaches did not correlate to certain portions of the lateral and seemed to be sporadic
in nature. This study theorizes that on some stages, frac begins leaking by the sealing element of the
plug, effectively sandblasting the casing at high velocities. These unexpected breaches in casing can be
problematic for proper frac isolation between stages, limited-entry perforating designs, and long-term
wellbore stability. These breaches should also be considered for operators that choose to scour pre-set plugs
that are set off depth with rate and proppant.

Perforation Imaging Analysis

Pre-frac images of perforations were obtained for four different stages with three different perforating
charges. These charges were all advertised as equal entry-hole perforating charges from three different major
manufacturers. Each charged averaged within 0.01" of advertised spec diameter. Table 1 below shows the
statistics for the measured downhole diameters, and Figure 22 below shows an example of the pre-frac
perforation images. Each perforating charge trialed performed satisfactorily.

Table 1—Perforation Imaging Data for Pre-Frac Diameters

Perforating Spec Average Minimum Maximum Coefficient

Charge Diameter (in.) Diameter (in.) Diameter (in.) Diameter (in.) of Variation

Charge #1 0.32 0.33 0.25 0.37 7%

Charge #2 0.35 0.35 0.32 0.37 4%

Charge #3 0.36 0.35 0.29 0.38 6%

SPE-199712-MS 17

Figure 22—Pre-frac image of perforation cluster.

A few assumptions were made for post-frac erosion analysis. The first was that all eroded perforations
were circular in nature. Actual areas of the perforations were not provided in the imaging deliverables,
but the maximum diameters were given. Almost all of the eroded perforations were circular and mostly
symmetrical in nature. The second assumption was that all of the pre-frac diameters were advertised spec
diameter. This was made since pre-frac images were only obtained on four of the total 99 stages analyzed.
Figure 23 shows an example of an eroded cluster of perforations.

Figure 23—Post-frac image of a perforation cluster.

Figure 24 below shows the percentage of diameter increase for each perforation imaged on the three
wells. Note that only 33% of wellbores #1 and #2 were imaged, whereas the full wellbore of well #3 was
imaged. Fiber optic warmback data was also obtained for wells #1 and #2. Compared to the spec pre-frac
diameters, almost all perforations showed some level of erosion with an average diameter increase of 41%.
18 SPE-199712-MS

Figure 24—Percentage of diameter increase for all perforations imaged, colored by well.

On stages that had both fiber optic warmback and erosion analysis, clusters that were measured by
fiber optics as fracture initiation points (FIP) showed an average 55% increase in diameter, and perforation
clusters that did not register as a FIP averaged a 53% diameter increase. Figure 25 below shows an example
of average erosion by cluster on a stage that also had fiber optic warmback. The blue bars indicate the
average erosion for FIP's, and the red bars represent average erosion for non-FIP clusters. No correlations
could be made with the two data sets. Based on erosion data, the completion designs effectively introduced
fluid and proppant to all clusters, but a distinct fracture network was not created for each perf cluster. This
indicates that fluid and proppant is exiting each cluster but not necessarily creating an individual fracture
system for each cluster. There may be some level of communication behind pipe with poor cement or in
the near-wellbore region.

Figure 25—Stage example showing average erosion by cluster colored by FIP classification.
SPE-199712-MS 19

As previously mentioned, several different completion designs were trialed with varying degrees of
extreme-limited entry. Capturing the dimensions of the perforations after stimulation allowed us to calculate
perforation friction values at the end of these frac stages. Figure 26 below displays the average initial
perforation friction (Cd=0.7) for the designs tested with 2, 3, and 4 shots/cluster as well as the final
perforation friction values (Cd=0.95). It was discovered that final perforation friction values were below
600 psi regardless of how high the initial perforation friction was, including up to 5,500 psi.

Figure 26—Pre-frac and post-frac perforation friction values for different shot/cluster designs

Figure 27 and Figure 28 below represent stage examples for the two different diverter strategies utilized.
Figure 27 is comparing the average erosion by cluster for stages pumped without diverter and with diverter
dropped halfway through the stage. On average, the stages pumped with diverter showed a much more even
amount of erosion across all clusters. This suggests that the diverter did effectively redistribute fluid and
proppant more evenly in these stages. Figure 28 is also a comparison of stages with and without diverter,
but on these diverter stages, it was deployed 2/3rds into the stage creating a 67/33 split rather than a 50/50
split of the treatment. In these stages, the erosion patterns look very similar. It is theorized that diverter still
redirected fluid and proppant on these stages, but that a terminal erosion value had already been reached
67% into the stage. Redirecting the fluid and proppant would not have had any noticeable effects on erosion
patterns in this scenario.
20 SPE-199712-MS

Figure 27—Average diameter increases for designs without diverter and

with diverter dropped halfway through the stage (50/50 Cycle 1 & 2 split).

Figure 28—Average diameter increases for designs without diverter and with
diverter dropped two thirds of the way through the stage (67/33 Cycle 1 & 2 split).

During these completion tests, some stages were completed with high volumes of fluid and proppant and
some stages were completed with low volumes of fluid and proppant in an attempt to create an erosional
model. A comparison of perforation erosion and pounds of proppant per perforation shows that there is only
a slight positive correlation. This indicates that the erosion is occurring early in the stimulation, and the
limited entry design becomes less effective quickly during treatment. Figure 29 below shows the erosion
SPE-199712-MS 21

data by stage for a well as well as the lb/perf designs trialed. More erosion was observed at the toe of the
well, but there was no consistent correlation to lb/perf.

Figure 29—Average diameter increase (%) per stage and LB/Perf per stage

Figure 30 below shows an attempt at an erosional model. Each point on the chart represents a stage's
average perforation diameter increase (%) as a function of that completion design's pounds of proppant
per perforation. Most notably, a stage pumped with less than 4,000 lb/perforation was shown to be just as
eroded as stages with over 8,000 lb/perforation.

Figure 30—Average diameter increases on a stage level (%) for varying designs of LB/Perf

Further analysis on a full wellbore of erosion patterns suggests that wellbore inclination or trajectory
could be playing a role in proppant placement. For every stage of a 10,000' lateral well, the average post-
22 SPE-199712-MS

frac diameter for each stage was plotted from toe to heel. A straight fit line was drawn, and the slope of
this line was used as a proxy for toe-heel bias within each stage. A positive slope indicated a heel-side bias
in the stage, and a negative slope indicated a toe-bias in the stage. Figure 31 below shows an example of
each of these types of stages.

Figure 31—Post-frac diameters for each perforation in a stage with toe-biased erosion and a stage with heel-biased erosion.

The slopes of each stage of the well were extracted and plotted to show a stark transition from all positive
slopes (heel-biased erosion pattern) to all negative slopes (toe-biased erosion pattern). Figure 32 displays
this data and where the transition point occurs.

Figure 32—Toe/Heel bias slopes plotted for each stage of a 10,000' lateral wellbore. A
stark transition occurs after the first 1/3rd of the wellbore from all toe-bias to all heel-bias.

This transition in the erosion patterns could not be correlated to any geological features or completion
design aspects, but it does appear to line up fairly well with the wellbore trajectory. Figure 33 is the
directional survey plotted and labeled with the transition point. It seems that the toe-bias erosion stages line
SPE-199712-MS 23

up with where the wellbore trajectory is toe down, and it transitions to heel-bias erosion when the wellbore
trajectory is toe up.

Figure 33—2D visualization of the lateral plotted with the directional survey coordinates.
The transition point from toe-biased erosion stages to heel-biased erosion stages is noted.

The final stage in the heel of this wellbore was completed at 45 degrees inclination and observed a large
toe-bias in erosion as displayed in Figure 34. This stage was also pumped with just half of the normal fluid
and proppant volumes, but observed just as much of an average diameter increase. Both of these data points
indicate that the inclination played a role in proppant placement, and that the erosion happens quickly during
the stage.

Figure 34—Final stage of the wellbore completed at 45 degrees inclination in the heel with half of the normal stage volume.

The phasing of the perforations was also analyzed. In these completion tests, the perforating guns were
not orientated or centralized and the pre-frac perforation diameters were consistent regardless of phasing
24 SPE-199712-MS

in the wellbore as shown in Figure 35 below. It does not appear that orientating or centralizing guns with
equal entry hole perforating charges is necessary.

Figure 35—Average pre-frac diameter of the perforations by phasing in the wellbore

from the low side. E.g., 180 degrees from the low side is the top of the wellbore.

For post-frac erosion analysis, slightly less erosion was observed in perforations on the top of the wellbore
(120-240 deg from the low side as depicted in Figure 36 below), but it does not appear to be significant.

Figure 36—Average post-frac diameter increase (%) of the perforations by phasing in the
wellbore from the low side. E.g., 180 degrees from the low side is the top of the wellbore.

Highlights from the post-frac perforation erosion analysis:

• 86% of perforations successfully imaged from 99 stages

• All perforations clusters showed significant erosion on average, even long stage spacing designs
SPE-199712-MS 25

• Post-frac diameters increased by 41% on average

○ P10 – 13%
○ P90 – 71%

• Perforation erosion does not correlate to Fracture Initiation Points (FIP) from fiber optic
warmbacks
○ Clusters not identified as a fracture initiation point showed just as much erosion as FIP clusters

• On the full wellbore of perforation imaging, wellbore trajectory and inclination appears to play a
role in proppant placement
○ Toe-biased stages with toe down trajectory
○ Heel-biased stages with toe up trajectory

• No correlation found with lb/perf and erosion. Erosion appears to happen very quickly.

Conclusion
Utilizing both the fiber optic warmback and ultrasonic perforation imaging technologies proved to be
valuable tools in diagnosing completion designs and complemented each other well. The key learnings are
summarized as follows:

• Stage spacing was increased by 25% with no indication of performance degradation utilizing
diverting agents and limited-entry perforating.
• Optimal perforation friction pressure found to be 2,000-3,000 psi (Cd=0.7)

• Near-wellbore diverting agents do not stimulating new clusters, as erosion data shows that all
clusters are receiving frac slurry with or without diverter, but it also shows that diverter is
effectively redistributing proppant and fluid
• Warmback data and perforation erosion data show no correlation indicating that perforation erosion
does not always result in fracture creation.
• Wellbore trajectory and inclination appear to be a factor in proppant placement.

• Plugs and/or drillout operations could be creating breaches in the casing.

There is still work to do to continue understanding the complex process of hydraulic fracturing and find
the optimal completion design. Considerations for future completion studies include:

• Pushing the limit of stage lengths to find the point of diminishing returns with limited-entry
perforating and diverting agents
• Continuing to evaluate the role of well trajectory on proppant placement

• Optimizng the amount and timing of diverter drops

• Incorporating an in-depth cement evaluation with these completion diagnostic tool

Nomenclature
DTS = Distributed Temperature Sensing
DAS = Distributed Acoustin Sensing
FIP = Fracture Initiation Points
FIP/1,000' = Fracture Initiation Points per 1,000' of Lateral
Ppf = Perforation friction (psi)
26 SPE-199712-MS

ΔPp = Pressure drop across perforations (psi)

Q = Flow rate (bbl/min)
ρ = Fluid density (lb/gal)
Np = Number of perforations
Dp = Perforation diameter (in.)
Cd = Discharge Coefficient
PLA = Polylactide Diverter
CT = Computed Tomography

References
1. Harpel, J., Ramsey, L., & Wutherich, K. (2018, September 24). Improving the Effectiveness
of Diverters in Hydraulic Fracturing of the Wolfcamp Shale. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/191600-MS
2. Natareno, N., Thelen, M., Charbonneau, J., Sahdev, N., & Cook, P. (2019, January 29).
Continuous Use of Fiber Optics-Enabled Coiled Tubing Used to Accelerate the Optimization
of Completions Aimed at Improved Recovery and Reduced Cost of Development. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/194331-MS
3. Sahdev, N., & Cook, P. F. (2016, August 1). Coiled Tubing Deployed Fiber Optics Utilized
in Observing Cross-Well Communication During Stimulation. Unconventional Resources
Technology Conference. doi:10.15530/URTEC-2016-2430791
4. Weddle, P., Griffin, L., & Pearson, C. M. (2017, January 24). Mining the Bakken: Driving
Cluster Efficiency Higher Using Particulate Diverters. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/184828-MS
5. Weddle, P., Griffin, L., & Pearson, C. M. (2018, January 23). Mining the Bakken II – Pushing
the Envelope with Extreme Limited Entry Perforating. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/189880-MS