SPE 107382
Radial Drilling in Argentina
M. Bruni, H. Biassotti, and G. Salomone, YPF S.A.
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 15–18 April 2007.
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, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
With a world context of high oil prices and a rate of increase
in reserves from new discoveries, that is not enough to
compensate the rate of extraction, in addition to the high
maturity of oilfields currently being developed in Argentina,
companies have been working to improve the recovery factor
of reserves, as a strategy to extend the useful life of the
existing assets.
Working in this direction, radial drilling technology seems to
be an alternative, which, in spite of the fact that it currently
raises uncertainty since it has never been tested in the past in
or country, can be adapted to the existing wells thus becoming
a low investment alternative.
The technology involves drilling lateral horizontal bores of
small diameter and up to one hundred meters long, with the
possibility of placing several within the each productive layer.
The laterals are made in two steps: First, the casing is
perforated with a ¾” mill and then the lateral extension is
carried out by high pressure water jetting.
For this evaluation, pilot tests were performed in different
oilfields, with the intention of covering a wide range of
possible scenarios and being able to evaluate the best
applications for this new alternative.
The selected scenarios and the different basins are the
following:
Golfo San Jorge Basin:
• Mature Oilfields: already exploited formations with
production below the economic limit.
• Viscous Oils: Formations with high viscosity oil and
low mobility.
Neuquén Basin:
• Mature Oilfields: low production formations
• Precuyano Formation (altered ignimbrites) of low
permeability, with possible micro-fissures to improve net
production.
• Water Injection: To increase secondary recovery
improving the sweeping of the formation.
This work shows the different experiences undergone by
Repsol YPF in Argentina with this technology as well as
shares the results obtained and the lessons learned.
Introduction
It is extremely important to have the possibility of
increasing production and raising usable reserves from the
known horizons; due to these facts, the search for new
technologies to increase production was started, and it was
then that the radial drilling technique appeared as a promising
one.(Ref 1, 2 and 3)
This process consists in making small diameter horizontal
perforations by using water jets at high pressure (jetting). The
diameter of these lateral horizontal perforations is of
approximately 2 inches (5,08 cm) and up to 330 ft (100 m) of
extension each, at the same productive level. Each one has a
bending radius as small as 1 ft (30 cm) and is made in two
steps: first, the casing is perforated with a 0.75-inch mill
(19.05 mm), and then the horizontal extension is made with
high-pressure fluid jetting (Figs. 1 and 2).
This application combines the following important factors:
• Low cost, it is applied to existing wells (new wells
are not required).
• Low geological uncertainty.
• Low environmental risk.
Among various reasons for this technique to increase
production, the following could be highlighted (Ref. 1):
• Improves the conductivity of an important area
around the well (improving drain efficiency).
• Possibility to define direction of the perforations.
• Helps the mobilization of viscous oils.
• Connects to areas of better petrophysical conditions.
2 SPE 107382
• Allows intervention of oil reservoirs limited by close-
by aquifers.
There was no background of this type of work in this
country. There are some operations abroad with some
favorable results. A nearby case where this technology was
applied is the Austral basin, in Magellan’s Strait (Springhill
Formation). There is also background of similar cases in the
USA (Ref. 2 and 4), Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, China (Ref.3)
and Russia.
Objectives of the Project
The Project considered the possibility of implementing
this technology in representative pilot wells in both basins
(Golfo San Jorge and Neuquén), that present different
geological, production and well geometry characteristics, with
the aim of trying horizontal perforations of small diameter to
increase production and determine the best application
scenario.
Expected Advantage: increase the productivity index
through horizontal perforations increasing the apparent pay
thickness and eliminating permeability barriers in the
reservoir; as well as increasing the recovery factor through the
improvement of drain efficiency (Ref. 1)
In addition, this technique could replace or complement
other conventional stimulation techniques that are used to
increment production such as hydraulic fractures and matrix
stimulations (Ref 1, 2 and 3). The expected advantages of the
technology to be applied in this project related to the ones
previously mentioned are:
- Greater horizontal penetration in the reservoir
increasing the apparent pay thickness.
- Low vertical development (Intervene in oil
reservoirs limited by close-by aquifers).
- Option to define direction of the perforation.
Development
Selection of wells
In order to evaluate and define the representative group of
wells for the pilot Project, a multidiscipline team of Workover
Engineers, Reservoir Engineers, Geologists and technical
personnel and operational personnel from the radial drilling
company was gathered taking into account the following
considerations for the selection of the wells:
• Electrical open-hole logs to define the petrophysical
characteristics of the reservoir and select the best section to
intervene.
• Observation of lateral cores, evaluation of amount of
sand in tests, wells close to failures, etc.: to evaluate the
consolidation of the formation, avoiding those that have
unconsolidated or friable sands.
• Data from TST, RFT, etc., considering that the
pressure reading not be inferior to 45% of the original.
• Well spacing, petrophysical data (permeability,
porosity, water saturation, etc.), thickness of the productive
formation and production data.
• Water-oil and gas-oil contacts so as not to connect
with undesired fluids.
• Type of well, vertical or directional
• CBL-VDL-CCL electrical logs as they are necessary
to have good cement between the casing and the formation to
backup the Jetting outlet.
• Casing mechanical status to avoid collapse, as up to
four bores at the same level will be made.
Description of Radial Drilling Equipment
It basically has a Coiled Tubing special unit and fittings.
1- Unit:
Similar equipment to a Coiled Tubing with the following
characteristics:
• ½ inch pipe, up to 13500 ft long and 10000 psi
working pressure.
• Monitoring and command cab.
• Source of hydraulic power.
• Triplex pump (2 - 5 gpm) of low flow rate and high
pressure (10000 psi)
• Injection head with hydraulic drive (pull = 10000 lbs)
optional, only for units operating at more than 6500 ft
2- Fittings:
2-1 Anchor: lowered with the work string of the workover
unit and has three functions:
• Maintain the tool outlet hole on the side of the casing;
the positioning is just with a simple pressure generated by a
band located on the opposite side.
• Guide the tool to go from vertical to horizontal in 1 ft
through a forged duct in the interior.
• Prevent reactive torque of the downhole motor while
the casing is perforated, through longitudinal guides where a
groove is located on the body of the motor.
2-2 BHA for the perforation of the casing (Fig. 2), formed
by the following elements:
• ¾” mill (1.905 cm)
• Elbow or articulated joint
• Nipple with lock
• 1 11/16” downhole motor (4.29 cm)
2-3 Drilling BHA (Figs. 3 and 4):
• Jet with three bores oriented forward and three
towards the back.
• 328 ft Kevlar flexible hose of ½” (1.27 cm).
SPE 107382
Description of the Radial Drilling execution process
First, a Workover rig is set up and the well is conditioned,
consisting in:
• Take out the production string
• Calibrate to the bottom of the well or at least below
the layer where the perforations will be made.
• Ensure there are no leaks in the casing.
• Test the layer to determine the flow rate and type of
fluid, in order to evaluate the improvement.
Then lower the work string with the baffle anchor to the
desired depth, the depth is verified with wireline records. If
required, the tool may be directed with the available
technology (gyroscope, magnetic).
Alter that, the radial drilling rig is mounted, the BHA is
assembled for the casing perforation and the first run is made
for the casing milling. Once the milling of the casing is
finished, the cutting tool is pulled out.
The drilling BHA is assembled and the second run is made
circulating with an intermediate flow rate; once the BHA is
close to the baffle shoe, the flow rate is increased and the tool
is slipped allowing for the introduction into the anchor. Once
the hose enters the formation, it will move horizontally in the
formation due to the force generated by the distribution of jet
nozzles (Ref. 2). (Fig.4)
Force S in the driving direction
6 With the evaluation of these parameters, wells were
S jetting = ρµ02 A0 – Σ ρµi2 cosφi Ai
i=1
Where:
A0 : hose inner area
Ai : nozzle area
µ0 : Speed in the hose
µi : Speed in the nozzle
ρ : Fluid density
φ : Angle of the nozzle), (2).
It is important to control the driving speed, because if it is
too slow, the formation could be washed leaving the
backwards jets without enough backup to generate the
necessary force to continue advancing, and once the tool is
static, starting it again is impossible due to existing friction
forces. When the tool gets to the end of the lateral, it is taken
out with a high pumping rate to clean the new bore.
Once the operation is finished, the Coiled Tubing is pulled
off and the workover string is turned clockwise to place the
baffle anchor in the next position to drill and repeat the
process described above.
At the end, the Radial Drilling rig is dismounted and the
test tool is lowered to evaluate the production of the perforated
area. Then, the final installation is lowered and the workover
rig dismounted. The estimated time for the perforation of the
four laterals is 24 hours and the whole operation lasts 5 days.
3
Also, to fulfill the commitment to perform a safe operation
without personal accidents, without environmental
contingencies, and cost effectively; the program included a
risk evaluation of the different tasks to perform during the well
operation.
Description of the drilling scenarios
a) Golfo San Jorge Basin
The average production of a well in the oilfields operated
by the company in the Golfo San Jorge Basin has dropped
from 4.20 m3/day in 1998 to 3.14 m3/day in 2004 due to the
maturity of the oilfields and the geological characteristics of
the reservoirs. In this context, since the year 2000 the search
for new technologies to increase production has been started,
and the radial drilling technique appeared as a promising one.
The selected layers were in good structural positions,
lateral continuity, correlation between production layers and
control of the water/oil contact.
The principal characteristic of the wells in the basin is that
they are vertical, that they are produced by artificial lift
simultaneously from various reservoirs distributed in a
stratigraphic column that can exceed 3300 ft in length between
the deepest perforation and the shallowest one and that they
need to be periodically intervened to maintain their production
flow rate.
selected with general geological characteristics of the reservoir
corresponding to lenticular, multilayer deposits, generated in
an environment of continental deposition.
• Thickness: varies between 6 and 20 ft.
• Useful Average Pay Thickness: 10 ft.
• Average porosity: 24%
• Average permeability: 100 md
• Average water saturation: 45%
See representative logs Fig. 5 and 6
Finally, taking into account previous data, the chosen wells
are representative of two oilfields in the Golfo San Jorge
Basin.
The experience was started with the intervention of
production layers that during the completion of the well had
been fractured and that are not currently offering a significant
production in the well, looking for an improvement of the
production of the well and evaluating if with this technique the
recovery factor was improved.
Three wells were chosen (Well # 1, 2 and 3) with these
characteristics and the swabbing tests showed an improvement
in the behavior of the layer (Table 1)
Later production controls show no significant variations in
wells #1 and #2. In the well #3, even tough the production
showed some increasing during the first period; it flattened
after 200 day after jet drilling (Fig. 7)
4 SPE 107382
Another scenario of two wells (Well # 4 and 5) with oil
production layers that during completion had a very good
performance without needing stimulation and that currently
offer low production to the total production of the well was
evaluated, trying in this context to improve production
eliminating possible damage or connecting sectors of the layer
with better petrophysical conditions. Swabbing tests showed
different response for each well. Meanwhile Well #4 did not
have any improvement, Well #5 had a considerable extraction
increase; however, the decrease in fluid level indicates worse
response than expected (Table 2).
Later production controls of the these wells (Fig. 8) show a
constant fall in Well #5 and no production in Well #4 after jet
drilling.
A third experience applied this technique in wells affected
to secondary recovery projects; two wells (Well # 6 and 7)
with these characteristics were intervened. The swabbing
results show improvement in the performance of the layer as
shown in Table # 3.
Later production controls of the same wells (Fig. 9) show
significant improvement in the performance of the Well #6
and slight variation in Well #7. Although in this last well there
was no substantial improvement in production, through
simulation, we can see that the declination curve changed,
reflecting a greater projected cumulative value, as shown in
Fig. 10.
As the fourth experience, two primary production wells
(Well # 8 and 9) were intervened; their main characteristics
were the good consolidation and the low permeability of the
reservoir. Trying here to connect zones with better
petrophysical conditions and facilitate the mobility of the oil.
The swabbing results (Table 4) show differing results in both
wells. Meanwhile Well #8 shows a negative response, Well #9
has an important increasing in fluid extraction.
Later production controls of the same wells (Fig. 11) show
a similar behavior to that of the swabbing tests.
In this context, a well being completed was intervened
(Well # 10), selecting a layer with good oil production (2400
l/h=15.1 bbl/h), trying to evaluate this technology in this
environment. Tests associated to this experience did not show
any change in terms of test flow rate (Table 5), as the
swabbing method was at the limit of its possibilities in four
strokes per hour. But there was an improvement the potential
of the layer since it improved the level by of 1475 ft, showing
a better connection between the reservoir and well, and as a
result an improvement in the productivity index.
Even though this well presents reservoir conditions similar
to close-by wells, production controls show that the initial
flow rate was greater than in nearby wells, but it declined
quicker than in those wells and has an accumulated production
projection smaller than the average in the area. (Fig. 12)
Finally, five wells were intervened (Well # 11, 12, 13, 14
and 15) whose main characteristics were high viscosity of oil
(between 700 and 1700 Cp at 50°C), reservoirs with original
low pressure and medium to low consolidation, factors which
make the hydrocarbon mobility more difficult. For this reason
in this case, the objective was to improve the mobility of these
crudes. The tests associated with these wells (Table 6)
showed improvement in most of the cases--it even had one
layer produce (Well #12) that through conventional methods
had not previously responded:
Later production controls in these wells (Fig. 12 and 13)
show that the changes are not important and a long time is
needed (around a year) to stabilize the production again, but
they tend to slightly improve the net production (Fig. 14),
water cut evolution).
b) Neuquén Basin
The Neuquén Basin is characterized by multiple reservoirs
generally formed by sandstones of fluvial and eolic origin of
different ages, oil and gas producers. In this basin, there are
mature oilfields with secondary recovery projects more than
20 years old and new oilfields where there still are flowing
wells as well as secondary recovery projects less than 5 years
old.
There is no typical well in the basin: vertical, directional,
horizontal, multidirectional, shallow wells and deep wells,
with horizontal stratum and very high angles over orogenic
belts.
Of the twelve wells treated up to the present in four
oilfields of the basin, ten were producers and two injectors; the
chosen wells were new wells and wells in production. In some
cases, more than one level per well was perforated, and in
most of these wells, four directed radials were made per level
trying to drain according to the dip of the structure and fluid,
the upper part in case of close-by water-oil contact, and the
lower part in the case of close-by oil-gas contact.
The most representative wells in which we can evaluate
this technique are three, those that through swabbing tests
showed not very important improvement, according to the
Table 7
The rest of the intervened wells are not representative as
they have tests in conjunction with other layers. In two wells,
previous and posterior tests were without fluid entrance.
Four wells in the completion stage were used, with the
intervention of a productive level in each one; in these cases,
the layer had not been perforated before and this technique
was used to communicate the formation with the well; due to
this fact, there were no tests previous to radial drilling. Well
tests (see Table 8) show that they are on the order of what is
obtained from conventional perforations in the respective
zones. These areas were not later put into production due to
different reasons.
TST tests were run in two wells before and after making
radial bores with the following development and results:
The first experience was performed in Well # 16. The aim
of the repair was to drain Proven Non Developed Reserves
(PND) from Mb. Troncoso Arcilloso Inferior (Fig. 16). During
drilling of the section of interest, this well suffered a loss of
circulation of 4.0 m3/h (25.16 bbl/h) and some plugging was
employed that generated important damage. The test through
conventional perforations did not meet expectations and it was
SPE 107382 5

intervened with this technology to bypass the generated
damage.
TST Test was carried out zone 5968/5976 ft
(1819.5/1822.5 m) (Fig. 17) with memory: 1C, 1.7 bbl/h, N:
5608 ft, 40% Pº, 60% H2O, flare off gas, Accumulating 39.9
bbls. Close multiflow valve x 24hs. Pull out TST test tool.
The behavior of the derivative indicates the existence of
two zones in the formation (Fig: 17):
One close to the well, where the transmissivity and/or
mobility was reduced in approximately 99 % (K=0.4
md).
The other, at approximately at a radius of 4.9 m, with
improvement in transmissivity and/or mobility (K=33.3
mD).
This could have happened due to changes in saturations,
relative permeabilities, pay thicknesses, etc.
Four directed radials were made at the following depths:
Depth Azimuth
1,823.00 215°
1,821.00 335°
1,818.50 35°
1,816.00 155°
The test tool was lowered and the TST run.
In the diagnostic diagram, it can be observed that the
medium slope of the derivative in the early stage would
indicate the existence of stimulation close to the well; maybe
generated by the radial perforations. After the first hour of
closure, the derivative presents a negative slope until the end
of the test. This behavior is attributed to pressure maintenance
due to a vertical existence of gas contact.
For the modeling, a Homogenous Reservoir Model and
limited to Constant Pressure was considered. The results were
the following:
• Extrapolar pressure: PI: 1513 psi
• Transmissivity Kh : 4.85 mD.m
• Skin S: -2.7
• Limit at P ct Re = 27.5 ft
A comparison was made between the two tests where a
degree of improvement is observed in terms of well damage,
going from S= -1.48 (slightly stimulated) to S= -2.73
(Stimulated). (Fig 17)
A second study of reservoir behavior whith TST was
executed in Well # 18. In this well the objective of radial
perforations was improve production.
Sequence of Operations:
Test of interval (5748/5784 ft MD) (Fig. 18) was
performed; with result of stabilized production with 2 inch
bore 500 bbl/d, oil 99%, water 1%, flare gas to the field,
accumulated in 9.50hs, 4120 bbl (Oil+Water).
Four (4) radial perforations were made of approximately
330 ft en length, in the same direction of the structure and all
of them directed to the northeast. The objective of these
perforations was to move the well drain environment away
from a close-by fault located to the south which is suspected
of letting gas enter from structurally superior reservoirs.
All the perforations performed in azimuth of 15° were at
5750 ft (1753m), 5756 ft (1755 m), 5763 ft (1757 m) and 5773
ft (1760 m) (The well log and perforated levels can be
observed in Fig 18)
A test after the radial perforations was run with the
following results:
Test zone 5750/5773 ft MD.
With a stabilized production with a 2 inch bore, 453 bbls/d
of oil 99%, water 1%. Accumulated in 17.30hs, 6640 bbls
(Oil+Water).
In order to evaluate response of stimulation through the
radial drilling technique, a Build Up test was performed before
and after the job (Fig. 19).
Build Up Before RT: flow was induced and tested for 8
hours. After that, it was closed for 24 hours to recover
pressure.
The results of the adjustment show the following:
Homogenous Reservoir.
Limit of Constant Pressure.
Scope of Investigation: 55.3 ft.
Ko_eq.h : 335 md-foot.
Skin : 0.496
Sand Thickness : 36 ft.
Pressure : 2112 psi.
Build Up After RT: flow was induced and tested for 8
hours. After that, it was closed for 24 hours to recover
pressure.
The results of the adjustment show the following:
Homogenous Reservoir.
Limit of Constant Pressure.
Scope of Investigation: 39.2 ft.
Ko_eq.h : 255 md-foot.
Skin : -0.725
Sand Thickness : 36 ft.
Pressure : 2120 psi.
A comparison was made between the two tests where a
degree of improvement is observed in terms of well damage,
going from S= 0.496 to S= -0.725. (Fig. 18)
The result of the test of stabilized production for the
interval (5750/5773 ft MD), before and after radial drilling is
similar.
After working, the upper perforation was isolated between
packers (5690/5733 ft MD) which is the gas producer.
The section (5750/5773 ft MD) was left in production,
with completion tubing of 2 3/8” and two gas lift injection
mandrels at 5703 and 5530 ft MD.
6 SPE 107382
The production test results at battery after this repair show
an improvement attributed to the upper layer isolation (GOR
decreased considerably in the well), more than to the radial
drillings performed. (Figs. 20 and 21)
There was also an opportunity to apply the experience in a
water injection well for a secondary recovery project, with the
objective of evaluating the capability of this technology to
improve injectivity.
The well has an effective activity and injects with 1560 psi
in the interval between 6092 ft and 6276 ft (MD) (Fig. 22)
As it is an injection well, the way to evaluate the
effectiveness of the technology is by pumping increasing flow
rates and was done before and after the perforations. They do
not show changes in behavior in the intervened section (Fig.
23).
After starting up and stabilizing the injection of the well,
wire line tests were run to define its injection profile, showing
slight improvement in this aspect and in the injectivity index.
This improvement is not significant.
Conclusions
On the operational side, jobs in shallow wells in the San
Jorge and Neuquén basins were satisfactory; the operative
program was complied with in time and form. In a deep well
in Neuquén, some operative problems were reported (fishing
and mechanical problems). There were not any type of
incidents and/or accidents; no environmental contamination
either.
The experience shows that it is necessary to have
petrophysical studies, rock mechanics and pressure tests, prior
to intervention, to know the reservoir conditions. Posterior
tests should be run to define the status of the perforations.
The technique shows high uncertainty in the orientation of
the perforations, so when necessary it should be
complemented with a system of down-hole directioning. In
thin reservoirs, it is advisable to perforate in the center of the
layer as the lateral course is unknown.
It is advisable to run posterior tests at restricted rates to
protect the integrity of the new perforations as in some cases,
after hours of swabbing tests, a sharp flow rate decrease was
observed.
The evaluation of the technique by production controls is
difficult in the event of wells that produce from various levels
simultaneously; the intervened layers compete in fluid input
with the other layers. For this reason, it would be convenient
to choose wells with one layer in production or just to put the
intervened layer temporarily in production by itself for a
correct evaluation of the technology.
In terms of production objectives and complying with
them, it is observed that the technology did not respond as
expected in most of the studied scenarios.
However, improvements in secondary recovery scenarios
were observed. Well # 6 has a substantial improvement and
Well # 7, although there was no substantial improvement in
production, through production simulation, we can see that the
declination curve changed, reflecting a greater projected
cumulative value, as shown in Fig. 10. The good results are
attributed to the fact that reservoirs have normal pressure,
sustained by water injection.
Another particular case, which continues to be under
evaluation, is the one associated with high viscosity oils.
Within this group, Well # 12 can be mentioned, which was a
well that had not produced before, was put in production after
intervention and the shown behavior is within the average of
close-by wells.
The improvement associated with other wells in this
context (Well 8; 13; 15) is related with the improvement of oil
mobility, as since there are no greater production flows rates,
but the water-oil ratio improved (Fig 15).
Even tough there was not a significant increase in rate of
production, TST and build up test performed before and after
jet drilling in wells #16 and 18 demonstrated the efficiency of
the technique in by passing damaged zone of near wellbore
and reaching better permeability conditions. (Figs. 17 and 19)
In the case of injection wells, it is necessary to continue
with the evaluation of well behavior for a minimum 12-month
period of time running ILT every 2 or 3 months to reach to
definite conclusions.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our appreciation for the people of
our company, from Neuquén and San Jorge basins and for the
people of associated companies who were involved in this
project.
References
1) W. Dickinson, SPE, Petrolphysics Inc., H. Dystra, SPE,
Consultant, and R. Nordlund, SPE, and Wayne Dickinson,
Petrolphysics Inc., Coiled tubing radials placed by jet drilling,
field results, theory and practices, 6th Annual Thecnical
Conference and exhibition of SPE, (p.343-355), Houston, Texas,
October 1993
2) P. Buset, SPE, and M. Riiber, SPE, PGS Intervention AS, and A.
Eek, SPE, PGS Reservoir AS 68504, Jet Drilling tool: Cost-
Effective Lateral Drilling Technology for Enhanced oil
recovery; SPE/ICoTA Coiled tubing roundtable, (p.343-355),
Houston Texas, March 2001
3) L. Yonghe, W. Chunjie, S. Lionhai, G. Weiji, Engeneering
Technology Research Institute of Liaohe Oilfield, China. SPE
International Oil and Gas Exhibition, Beijing, China, Nov. 2000
4) W. Dickinson, SPE, and R. Dickinson, Petrolphysics Inc., A.
Herrerra, H. Dykstra, SPE y J. Nees, Independent
ConsultantsCorpoven S.A., Slim holes multiple radial drilled
with coiled tubing, II LACPEC, (p. 131-139) Caracas,
Venezuela, March 1992
SPE 107382 7

Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling

Extraction Level IT Extraction Level IT (%)
(bbl/h) (ft) (%) (bbl/h) (ft)
Well # 1 2.96 3077 100% 3.65 2955 49%
Well # 2 3.15 2827 40% 5.03 2686 60%
Well # 3 3.78 3001 90% 4.41 2952 85%
Table 1: Swabbing tests in fractured zone scenario

Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling

Extraction Level IT Extraction Level IT (%)
(bbl/h) (ft) (%) (bbl/h) (ft)
Well # 4 1.76 3316 100% 1.51 3395 100%
Well # 5 2.83 2417 52% 5.98 2676 46%
Table 2: Swabbing tests in layers without production scenario

Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling

Extraction Level IT Extraction Level IT (%)
(bbl/h) (ft) (%) (bbl/h) (ft)
Well # 6 1.89 2112 92% 8.56 1942 42%
Well # 7 4.78 1988 35% 8.18 2736 50%
Table 3: Swabbing Tests in zones associated to secondary recovery projects as scenario

Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling

Extraction Level IT Extraction Level IT (%)
(bbl/h) (ft) (%) (bbl/h) (ft)
Well # 8 1.38 4953 100% 0.38 5127 100%
Well # 9 4.97 6101 16% 7.43 5888 16%
Table 4: Swabbing tests in low permeability zones as scenario

Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling

Extraction Level IT Extraction Level IT
(bbl/h) (ft) (%) (bbl/h) (ft) (%)
Well # 10 15.10 4592 9% 15.10 3116 9%
Table 5: Swabbing Tests in a well being completed

Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling

Extraction Level IT Extraction Level IT
(bbl/h) (ft) (%) (bbl/h) (ft) (%)
Well # 11 1.23 2949 50% 2.20 2778 55%
Well # 12 No entrance 4.41 4212 100%
Well # 13 6.29 2998 74% 6.42 2985 79%
Well # 14 3.45 2873 80% 11.33 1968 86%
Well # 15 1.64 3736 12% 4.03 3628 14%
Table 6: Swabbing Tests in well with viscous oil

Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling

Extraction Level IT Extraction Level IT
(bbl/h) (ft) (%) (bbl/h) (ft) (%)
Well # 16 6.8 4756 50% 9.2 5412 40%
Well # 17 3.1 2988 35% 5.8 3257 95%
Well # 18 20.6 SurgeØ 1% 18.9 SurgeØ 1%
2 inches 2 inches
Table 7: Tests that show experiences in the most representative repaired wells in Neuquén basin
8 SPE 107382

After Jet Drilling

Extraction Level IT
(bbl/h) (ft) (%)
Well # 19 15.1 3014 90 %
Well # 20 3 3070 97 %
Well # 21 S/E Depleted 0%
Well # 22 13.8 3772 78 %
Table 8: Swabbing tests in wells where the technology was used
replacing conventional perforations

Fig. 3: Diagram of Tool for drilling of the formation

Glossary Fig.3:
Manguera de Kevlar: Kevlar hose
Boquilla: nozzle

Fig. 1: Representative diagram of perforated laterals

Fig. 4: Diagram of the Drilling Nozzle

Fig. 2: Diagram of Tool to perforate Casing

Glossary of Fig 2:
Motor de fondo: Downhole motor
Niple con guías: Nipple with guides
Unión articulada: articulated joint
Fresa: mill
Ancla: Anchor

Fig. 5 Intervened Intervals in the Well # 6 - 2463 ft (751 m)

SPE 107382 9

450
Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling 400

Production Gross (bbl/d)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Num ber of Days
Well # 6 Well # 7

Fig. 9: Production Curves in zones associated to secondary

recovery projects.

Fig. 10: Production curves Well # 7

Fig. 6 Intervened Intervals in the Well # 13- 3577 ft (1090.5 m)

140
Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling

Production Gross (bbl/d)

120
100
Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling 90 100
Production Gross (bbl/d)

80
80
70
60
60
50 40
40
20
30
20 0
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
10
0 Num ber of Days
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 Well # 8 Well # 9

Num ber of Days Fig. 11: Production Curves in low permeability zones as scenario
Well # 1 Well # 2 Well # 3

Fig. 7: Production Curves in fractured zones scenario

100
Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling
Production Gross (bbl/d)

90
Production Gross (bbl/d)

Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 Num ber of Days
Num ber of Days Well # 10
Well # 4 Well # 5
Fig. 12: Production Curves in a well being completed
Fig. 8: Production Curves in layers without production scenario
(Well # 4 due to mechanical problems could not be put into
production after intervention).
10 SPE 107382

100
90

Production Gross (bbl/d)

Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
Num ber of Days
Well # 11 Well # 12 Well # 13

Fig. 13: Production Curves in experiences with viscous oils

140
Production Gross (bbl/d)
Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling
120

100

80 Fig 16: Intervened Level in Well # 16

60
Glossary:Figs. 17 & 19
40
Primer TST = First TST
20 Segundo TST= Second TST
0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
Num ber of Days
Well # 14 Well # 15

Fig. 14: Production Curves in experiences with viscous oils

100
90
Before Jet Drilling After Jet Drilling 80
70
Water Cut %

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Num ber of Days
Well # 8 Well # 13 Well # 15
Fig 17: TST test comparison before and after radial perforations in
Fig. 15: Curves of the evolution of water cut Well # 16
SPE 107382 11

GOR (scm/m3)

60000

45000

30000 GOR (scm/m3)

15000

0
Ene Febr Marz Abril Mayo Junio Julio
Agosto Sept Oct

Fig. 21: GOR curve Well # 18, The decrease is due to isolation of
upper gas cap with PKR after intervention

Fig 18: Log of Well # 18, where depths of laterals, all in Azimuth
15º are shown

Fig. 22: Water Injection well log and levels in which radials were
made with their respective azimuth.
Fig. 19: TST test comparison before and after radial perforations
in Well # 18 3000
2800 SRT Post RDT
300 2600 SRT Pre RDT
2400
250
Press (psi)

2200
200
2000
Bruta (Bbl/dia)
150 1800
Neta (Bbl/dia)
1600
100
1400
50 1200

0 1000
692 1384 2170 2893 3585 4906
li o
o
br
e

ril

pt
o

ct
to
z

ni
En

ar

ay

Q (Bls/d)
Ab
Fe

Se

O
Ju

os
Ju
M

Ag

Fig. 23: Tests of increasing flow rate before and after radial
Fig. 20: Production Curve Well # 18, the increase in production is perforations in injection well
attributed mainly to the decrease in GOR as the upper gas cap
was isolated
Glossary of Fig 20:
Bruta: Gross
Neta: Net
Día: Day