SPE 164692

Improving Production Using a Unique Self-Positioning Tool to Deliver Four

Types of Acid Stimulations in a Well: Matrix Penetration, Acid Washing,
Many Micro/Mini Fractures, and Large Fractures
Jim B. Surjaatmadja, Abdulla M. Al Hamad, and Arshad Waheed; Halliburton

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the North Africa Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Cairo, Egypt, 15–17 April 2013.

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 use of coiled tubing (CT) to distribute acid for stimulation has shown good results in the past. Use of CT allows the acid
to be delivered evenly throughout the well. This is especially true for openhole wells in which bullheading acid into it will
only acidize the heel of the well. While often used, such approaches will create massive enlargements at the entry point
where the acid first contacts the acid soluble rock, causing ineffective treatments and re-entry issues. Wellbore collapse often
follows. The use of CT as a pinpoint delivery method is therefore preferred.
An even better approach with CT is to add a jetting tool to the bottomhole assembly (BHA). With this configuration, it is
an option for different treatments that can be completed in a single trip, such as simple matrix acidizing, acid wash, or even
hydrajet assisted acid fracturing (HJAAF). This latter one can be used to place many microfractures or minifractures in the
well; and by increasing the bottomhole pressure with annular injection, the HJAAF can create medium to very large fractures
for sustained productivity.
This paper discusses the implementation of this combined process in the Middle East. The wells in the discussions have
large openhole sections to be stimulated. Moreover, as often found in the brownfields, a small production tubing that has
been weakened by corrosion and erosion is present and cannot be removed for many reasons, such as losing the well and
related costs. The CT and associated tools in such cases must therefore be very small to enter through this tubing and its
associated “no-go” restrictions. A small OD unique jetting mechanism that places the jet nozzles closer to the wellbore wall
was therefore necessary to perform this task. Excellent results were obtained using this process and are presented in this
paper.

Introduction
The use of acid in the oil field became relevant more than 100 years ago when Frasch and Van Dyke (1896) proposed the use
of hydrochloric (HCl) acid, muriatic acid, and sulphuric acid (the latter credited to Van Dyke) to improve the production of
oil wells. Approximately 40 years later, gels were proven to be effective to divert acid from entering permeable treated areas
(Grebe and Stoesser 1935) and causing it to travel to untreated areas, supposedly resulting in a very homogeneous acid
treatment throughout the wellbore. Gelling agents used in those days were food starches, which were known to convert to
thin fluid form after the starches were attacked by bacteria. If this sounds familiar, it is because, in general, the basics of
stimulation have remained the same throughout the years. In fact, the attempts to improve the effectiveness of the treatments
using artificial chemistry have reverted back to “green chemistry.”
While the basics remain the same, technology improvements have brought forth more versatility, accuracy of placement,
and predictability. Formulations with precise operating temperature ranges continue to be developed, as well as “smart”
gelling agents that use pH levels as a trigger to begin gelling, thus creating an effective plug when the acid is spent and a
clear indication that the area is treated (MaGee et al. 1997; Taylor et al. 2001). Acid can also be generated in-situ, delivered
in the form of non-acetic beads and degrading into pure acid after placement (Nasr-ElDin et al. 2007).
Even though the fluids are becoming smarter and more effective, questions of whether the fluid arrives at the intended
target remain. The reason is that fluids are generally “lazy,” meaning fluids select the easiest possible path. Mechanical
delivery of stimulation fluids has therefore gained much attention in the past 50 years. Fracturing of rock using fluids, or
“fracking” as it is referenced in the press, wherein water-based fluids are used to increase wellbore exposure to the formation,
began as a commercial oilfield service process in early 1949 (Hassebroek et al. 1954). Before that, explosives, used since the
2 SPE 164692

early 1900s, were the only means of “fracturing” the downhole formations. This was followed by use of mechanical diversion
systems, such as packers, straddle packers, bridge plugs, or even gel plugs, sand plugs, and the like. Recently, the use of
dynamic diversion (Surjaatmadja et al. 1998 and 2005; Love et al. 1998) has been successfully implemented to efficiently
deliver stimulation fluids (acid or sand slurries) to specific locations within a wellbore in an expedient manner, which will be
discussed in detail in the next section.

Hydrajet Assisted Fracturing (HJAF)

Introduced in the late 1990s, hydrajet assisted fracturing (HJAF) was presented to the industry as a means to stimulate
openhole horizontal wellbores (Surjaatmadja 1998; Surjaatmadja et al. 1998; Love et al. 1998). While initially marketed as an
openhole well solution, its use quickly expanded to other types of wells, including cemented casing, uncemented liners, and
preperforated liners in openhole laterals (Surjaatmadja et al. 2005). In essence, when using hydrajet tools to perforate and
fracture stimulate wells (Fig. 1), a jet nozzle accelerates fluid to a very high speed (greater than 600 ft/sec). With the
assistance of abrasives in the fluid, the jet erodes a perforation within the rock. As the perforation achieves sufficient depth,
stagnated fluid flow creates a much higher pressure at the tip of the perforation (shown in Fig. 1 as 1,700 psi higher). With a
sufficient perforation surface area, a fracture will be initiated from the tip. It is therefore important to note that this method is
the only method that initiates the fracture from the perforation tip, as proven by the Bernoulli relationship (Bernoulli 1738)
and with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models combined with finite element analysis (FEA), as shown in Fig. 2 (Van
Gijtenbeek et al. 2010). On the left of Fig. 2, a high velocity flowback (or splashback) from fluid exiting the perforation in
the casing is shown. This restriction causes a 300-psi increase in pressure toward the left, as shown on the right side of Fig. 2.
In openhole cases, this pressure increase to the left side of the figure will not occur; instead, pressures will continually drop
toward the annular space. Pressure on the right side will remain high.
As the fracture extends from the perforation tip, it is possible that the total flow rate achieved by the jets is not sufficiently
high to extend the fracture significantly. In this situation, the HJAF process allows subsidizing the stimulation flow from the
annulus, which is pumped from the surface at a rate required to significantly increase the fracture size. In general, this
annulus fluid is a clean fluid that is compatible with the fluid from the tubing, mixed downhole in the process.

Fig.1—Principles of HJAF.

Fig. 2—CFD analysis results.

SPE 164692 3

In some situations, the creation of a large fracture is not desired for many reasons, such as location of water or the intent to
bypass near-wellbore (NWB) damage. To achieve this using the HJAF process, the wellbore wall must be jetted such that the
following conditions are met:
∆ . .
................................................................................................. (1)
where Pi is the incremental pressure of the fluid Pf in the wellbore at the jetted location, as compared to the hydrostatic
pressure Ph (i.e., Pi = Pf – Ph), d is the jet diameter, P is the minimum or required jet pressure differential, S is the jet
standoff or the distance between the jet nozzle tip and the jetted surface. The “flare” is defined as the inclusive angle of the
conic shape of the jet as it leaves the nozzle. This equation assumes the coefficient of discharge of the nozzles to be 0.91 (=
1/1.1).
Obviously, this process works even better with acid as the primary stimulation fluid in a high-solubility carbonate
formation. This process provides the ability to perform real-time in-situ mixing—real-time meaning that changes downhole
can be controlled by surface changes and will occur within seconds downhole (speed of sound, in liquids about 2,000 ft/sec)
(Rees et al. 2001). Another benefit this system offers is that mechanical isolation is unnecessary to remain essentially isolated
from downhole of the jetting location because “sealing” is performed dynamically, as discussed previously. Using this jetting
method through coiled tubing (CT) in combination with slow-retraction of a jetting tool was tested very successfully in
Canada and elsewhere (Surjaatmadja et.al. 2002), and proved to offer much better production response than the conventional
acid wash. The slowly moving jet streams hit the rock surface and created grooves on the rock face (Fig. 3, left). A
dissection of the rock sample perpendicular to the grooves portrays penetrations as deep as 1 in. (Fig. 3, right).

Fig. 3—Three hydrajets cut grooves in rock during large scale testing inside a water tank: left picture shows grooves cut as viewed
from several feet away, while right picture is a closer view of the rock broken apart and transverse to the jetted grooves showing
1/2- to 1-in. depth of penetration by the jetted fluid.

Fig. 4 illustrates areas where natural fractures or channels existed in the rock. As can be observed in the two photographs,
penetrations as deep as 5 in. were be obtained when the jet stream encountered the weak areas; fracture growth of this type
may be even deeper if the fractures are larger. These test observations demonstrate the effectiveness of the HydraJet Assisted
Acid Fracturing used to only treat the NWB area (HJAAF-NWB process).
4 SPE 164692

Fig. 4—Hydrajetted fluid penetrating into and opening natural fractures.

Common Issues with Horizontal Wells That Were Previously Produced

While it is always lucrative to discover hydrocarbons in new wells, stimulation of wells in the brownfields, when performed
properly, can result in equally lucrative wells at a much lower cost. Successful achievement of this begins with understanding
the well and why it underperformed. Oftentimes, however, stimulation choices for older wells are limited for many reasons.
The most common reasons are damage because the wellbore in general has been exposed to condition such that it is severely
eroded and corroded. Joints, connections, and even some casing or tubing walls are weakened such that any pressurization of
the well as would be necessary for conventional stimulation processes can cause them to rupture. The well operator generally
has an estimate of the safe pressure limits for these wells. Pulling the production tubing is always undesirable, as it increases
cost (e.g., for drilling out packers, etc.). In some old wells, that cost may not even be the primary issue; the main risk is
finding unknown flaws behind the tubing that can jeopardize the stimulation plan completely. Different material composition
of the packer slips could have triggered more localized corrosion, meaning that drilling of the packer could suddenly expose a
badly corroded spot.
Even dealing with newer wells, tubing removal problems can be encountered. The cost-consideration process is always
evaluated during the planning stage, and safety and stimulation issues often jeopardize the computation of the return on
investment (ROI). With few exceptions, the less expensive option is always confirmed as the better option until stimulation is
required or until serious issues arise. Otherwise, “cost-control” is the norm.
Regardless of the approach one takes, it oftentimes leads to the same situation—a small production tubing, open at the
bottom, inside a large liner or into a large diameter openhole section. If pulling the production tubing is not an option, then
there are only two choices: (1) pump blindly through tubing (bullhead) or (2) use CT to enter through the production tubing.
Note that there will usually be some reduced diameter restrictions, such as a profile nipple or other restrictions; hence, any
CT tools must be small enough to pass through these restrictions if milling them is a problem.
If the formation is a highly soluble carbonate formation, acid treatments are usually the choice for the treatment approach.
However, for bullhead through-tubing treatments, that might not be the best choice. Acidizing through production tubing
might just create an enlargement near the bottom of the production tubing, as shown in Fig. 5. An enlargement such as this
can result in a small improvement of production because it is just localized around the heel of the well. Moreover, depending
on the shape of the enlargement, it can cause future re-entry issues. It also carries an increased risk of wellbore collapse.
The other option would be placement of acid using CT deployed stimulation processes. There are basically four different
processes: (1) using spot acid, (2) acid washing, (3) HJAAF NWB, and (4) HJAAF. These four processes are listed in order
from lowest to highest respective to the depth of penetration achieved by the treatment method. Note that, in these four
processes, acid is delivered downhole through the CT only; so, only locations near the tip of the CT will encounter the acid.
In the last two processes, clean fluid (non-acid type) is pumped through the annulus.

Damage removal: The spot acid method would be the approach taken if the desire is to just treat a small area of the wellbore,
or the acid washing to try and remove a layer of the wellbore wall evenly. Oftentimes, because wellbore fluids and treatment
acid densities can be different, acid might only attack the bottom (or top), something that could be avoided using acid
washing with localized mixing. In addition, acid washing (using jetting tools, especially if rotating) would more dependably
mechanically clean the wall surfaces, thus providing good formation contact with the acid. These processes are only for
surface damage removal.

Stimulation of the formation: The two other processes listed use the patented HJAAF technique and, as indicated by the
name, involve the placement of fractures in the formation rock—many, in fact. The HJAAF NWB extends the acid wash,
SPE 164692 5

also creating many microfractures, minifractures, or even larger fractures, while still performing an acid wash in between
them. The large and small fractures will also be etched such that a much larger surface of the formation is exposed for better
production. The fourth option is HJAAF, which creates large fractures at many selected locations along the lateral. Fracture
sizes greater than 100 ft half-length are not uncommon; therefore, this is the option to use for a prolonged production increase
because the fracture will capitalize on producing rock formations far away from the wellbore, hence capturing a much larger
production region.

Fig. 5—Enlargement in entry area of lateral from bullheaded through-tubing acidizing.

Obviously, it could be argued that one is better than the other; however, it is possible that all four processes can be
implemented with one trip in the hole. With CT and moving the tool at command, all processes could be effectively
employed together and maximum production obtained from the well. The outcome from this proposed stimulation is
illustrated in Fig. 6. Beginning the operation near the toe of the well, medium sized fractures were placed every 20 ft using
the HJAAF process, using a 2-in. self-positioning hydrajet tool deployed on CT. Between the medium fractures, the tool was
pulled slowly while jetting to provide the “NWB” effect—extra-deep matrix cleaning while finding microfractures and
opening them slightly to create mini/microfractures at those locations. This combination is an excellent “quad-win”
proposition for acid stimulation of carbonate wells. Win #1 is that medium-sized fractures are placed to access far-field
regions in the formation. This helps ensure the extended production period this well has the capability to offer. Win #2 is the
deep matrix penetration the jetting offers in between each pair of fractures. This is performed by pressurizing the wellbore
above pore pressure, which provides a good bypass of skin damage around the wellbore; as does Win #3, where powerful
acid wash forcefully removes additional skin damage, combined with the matrix skin reduction. Lastly, Win #4 represents the
creation of microfractures at each and every weak spot in the wellbore wall, opening them a little to form a microfracture at
that point, bypassing deep damage effectively. All four features combined create an unbeatable solution. Better yet, all four
solutions are performed in one seamless operation.
6 SPE 164692

Fig. 6—Combining four processes in one well.

The Dilemma
Based on the discussed options, it should be obvious that the best solution for older wells is the combined solution. However,
these methods require hydrajetting notches in the casing and rock, and historically, if the wellbore is large, a reasonably large
tool is required (centralized, if possible) to help ensure that all jets are significantly close to the wellbore walls, as shown in
Fig. 7 (preferably as the image on the right). This size of tool would require the removal of the small production tubing,
including any completion tools below it, without which, the HJAAF processes would be less effective. This is attributed to
the high reaction forces of the jets for the case on the right of Fig. 7, will push the tool all toward the opposite direction,
possibly even to the opposite wall. While the situation shown on the left side of Fig. 7 is still a possibility, it is still not
effective because, in general, only 50% of the jets or less are actually going to be near the wellbore wall as it would “push
away” from the closest position only a very small amount.

Fig. 7—Most desired positions of jetting tool for HJAF.

A unique tool was therefore designed and built for this purpose. This self-positioning tool was designed to overcome the
reaction forces created by the jets. The tool is shown in Fig. 8. As shown, the tool uniquely bends upward into the direction
of the jets. The jets are therefore positioned near the target wellbore wall or the casing no matter what position the tool was in
before being pressurized. This will allow the formation rock to be hydrajetted effectively (first perforating the casing, if
SPE 164692 7

present). For the HJAAF processes, this means that the Bernoulli effects are maximized because of the small jet distance
from the resulting perforated tunnels.

Fig. 8—Self-positioning hydrajet tool opposes reaction forces of the jets and moves to target.

Field Case Studies in Kuwait

In Kuwait, there are many older oil wells that are no longer producing or are producing at uneconomical rates. These wells
are evaluated to determine if a reentry using a small coil and the necessary tool is possible. If deemed necessary, then they are
further evaluated to determine if a reentry and treatment using HJAF would be effective, following which, an action plan is
devised for the well.
In general, there are several wells in the country that have a construction similar to that shown in Fig. 9. In short, the
wells are completed using a 3.5-in. production tubing, and there is a restriction with an ID of 2.81 in. These restrictions, or
“no-gos,” are often related to the existence of profile nipples in the tubing that are usually installed for well-control
applications. The intervention BHA must therefore be capable of traveling through this restriction and, better yet, also allow
flow passage through the annulus. This means that the CT and the BHA OD must be approximately 2 to 2.375 in.
Fig. 9 also illustrates that the producing section of the well is an 8.5-in. openhole section. In this case, it is about 1,500 ft
long, which obviously differs from well to well. However, it can quickly be observed that a 2.375-in. jetting tool (or smaller)
would not be effective in this situation. The tool shown in Fig. 8 was therefore selected for this application because it would
position the jet very close to the target wall when pressurized.
8 SPE 164692

Fig. 9—Typical well construction in the region.

Two wells similar to Fig. 9 were stimulated using this approach. In each well, the plan was to stimulate the entire
openhole section of the well using both the combined process discussed previously, and the use of the discussed unique tool
would provide an ideal fit-for-purpose tool application. The first well that was attempted was a horizontal well in south
Kuwait. The well diagram is shown in Fig. 9. The planned job for this well was to create 65 medium-sized fractures
throughout the 1,560-ft openhole section in this well, only medium-sized so that they would not encroach on possible water-
producing formations nearby. The formation is a thin carbonate layer, about 10- to 30-ft thick, with permeabilities ranging
from 0.2 to 2.0 md, containing light oil at 1,700- to 1,800-psi reservoir pressure. However, at the time of treatment, this well
had not been able to produce at economical levels, likely because of severe damage. Previous treatments on this well yielded
unsatisfactory results (only short-term production).
The CT and CT-tubing annulus pumping processes were performed continuously, pumping at a high rate through the
tubing and the annulus to form the medium-sized fractures (about 10.5 bbl of gelled acid). Then, the CT was pulled up slowly
with reduced pumping rates through both the tubing and annulus. After moving up 20 ft, during which 3 bbl of gelled acid
was pumped. This process was planned to be repeated (approximately) 65 times. A sample job plot is shown in Fig. 10.
SPE 164692 9

Fig. 10—Pump pressure and flow rate chart of Well 1.

Unfortunately, after 11 repetitions, pressures dropped drastically. This was an indication that the tool had failed. Pulling
out of hole (POOH), the BHA revealed a catastrophic failure—not just a nozzle failure, as often experienced in the jetting
field. In fact, the tool broke off completely, as shown in the right of Fig. 11.

Fig. 11—Tool failure at Stage 11.

Initially, it was thought that fatigue might have contributed to this failure because H2S was not reported to be present in
this well. Therefore, it was decided to resume the treatment using a replacement tool, but using 2,000 psi lower pressure. This
represented a 20% pressure reduction at the tool. This was projected to increase tool life by at least three to four times or
more. If fatigue was the issue, this should overcome the problem. It should be noted that the tool was pressure tested to
15,000 psi in the lab, and, based on the flow rate through the tubing, the pressure across the tool during the job before the
failure was less than 4,000 psi. The results of the second attempt were similar (i.e., the tool failed again after 12 stages,
almost at the same elapsed job time—80 min versus 90 min). Because the influencing factor seemed to be time of exposure,
it could then be assumed that the failure was a result of metal failure attributed to chemical exposure and not fatigue. The
treatment was then terminated with only 32% of the well stimulated. After the aborted treatment, the tool remnants were
10 SPE 164692

evaluated in the lab, and it was confirmed that the failure was caused by H2S exposure. The data from the well operator
showed no H2S; however, there are possibilities that FeS or FexSy minerals were present. With the injection of HCl acid,
these minerals will react and create H2S in situ—a possible cause of the failure. The lab examinations showed that all
modules exhibited cracking, with all of them showing intergranular cracks, as shown in Fig. 12. This confirmed that H2S
exposure was the primary cause of failure. The tool metallurgy was therefore redesigned for H2S application for future use.

Fig. 12—Intergranular fractures showing H2S cracking.

With only one third of the well stimulated using this method, a full year evaluation of the production of the well was
performed. The results were exceptionally good. The well produced somewhat better than it did in its early life production,
while using a No. 24 choke (24/64 in.) to limit production for sustaining long-term production. It maintained the same
production levels for more than a year. Because of this good performance, another well was treated using the same method.
The second well is in east Kuwait and is located in the same formation. It is also dimensionally similar to Well 1 (Fig. 9).
Unlike using the high-strength material for the tool, as used in the first well (for no H2S use), the tool was redesigned to
survive the harsh H2S environment. A weaker, high-nickel-content steel was used, thus forcing the size increase by 10% to an
outer dimension (OD) of 2.20 in. The treatment performed on this well was similar to the treatment performed on the
previous well, with one difference—less medium-sized fractures were planned. Instead of 65 medium-sized fractures, in this
well, there were only 44. The distance between each successive fracture was determined to be 35 ft, instead of the 20 ft used
on the previous well.
A partial job plot can be observed in Fig. 13. As can be seen when compared to Fig. 10, there is one major difference in
this operation. The annulus rate increase occurred in the middle of the medium fracturing phase. This was selected so that,
during the initiation of the fracture, a higher concentration of acid would be present to better etch the mouth of the fracture.
The major extension of the fracture was performed thereafter, about two minutes after the fracturing stage began. This way, a
full 20% HCl acid was expended at the NWB location. The remainder of the stage was performed at a higher rate by pumping
more clean fluid through the annulus, which allowed the acid to be diluted to about 12 to 14%.
After all stages were pumped, the CT was round-tripped and a low-concentration acid wash stage was pumped for added
cleanup and to remove unspent acid residue from the well and help start production. To improve effectiveness of the
treatment, an ultrasonic device was used to deliver the fluid. This was followed by the normal stimulation liquid removal
using nitrogen.
The production of the well was excellent, similar to the previous well. This well could not produce anything before the
stimulation. After stimulation, this well again produced at the original production levels with choke sizes chosen to optimize
the production rate.
SPE 164692 11

Fig. 13—Pump and flow rate chart for Well 2.

Conclusions
The use of a specially designed small OD hydrajet tool deployed on CT combined with acid fracturing and jetted acid wash
stimulation technique can be an effective solution to revive older open hole carbonate formation wells that have become less
productive (or totally non-productive). This process proved more effective and longer lasting than simple damage removal by
both removing NWB damage and also fracturing to bypass damage and to reach deeper into the reservoir.
Addditionally, it was shown that a tool designed to resist H2S damage could successfully complete the treatment as designed
without tool failure.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Kuwait Oil and Gas and Halliburton for permission to publish this paper.

References
Bernoulli, D. 1738. Hydrodynamica.
Dysart, G.R., Spencer, A.L., and Anderson, A.L. 1969. Blast Fracturing. API 69-068 Drilling and Production Practice.
Frasch, H. and Van Dyke, J. W. 1896. Increasing the Flow of Oil Wells. US Patent No. 556,669.
Grebe, J.J. and Stoesser, S.M. 1935. Treatment of Deep Wells. US Patent No. 1,998,756.
Hassebroek W. E., Stegelman, A. Jr., and Westbrook, S.S.S. 1954. Progress in Sand-oil Fracturing Treatments. Drilling and Production
Practice. 54-212.
Kalfayan, L. 2000. Production Enhancement with Acid Stimulation, first edition. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Pennwell Books.
Love, T.G., McCarty, R.A., Surjaatmadja, J.B., Chambers, R.W., and Grundmann, S.R. 1998. Selectively Placing Many Fractures in
Openhole Horizontal Wells Improves Production. Paper SPE 50422 presented at the SPE/CIM International Conference on Horizontal
Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1–4 November. http//dx.doi.org/10.2118/50422-MS.
MaGee, J., Buijse, M.A., Pongratz, R. 1997. Method for Effective Fluid Diversion when Performing a Matrix Acid Stimulation in
Carbonate Formations. Paper SPE 37736 presented at the Middle East Oil Show and Conference, Bahrain, 15–18 March.
http//dx.doi.org/10.2118/37736-MS.
Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Al-Zahrani, A.A., Garzon, F.O., Giraldo, C.A.F., Al-Hakami, I.M., and Al-Marri, H.M. 2007. Acid Fracturing of Gas
Wells Using an Acid Precursor in the Form of Solid Beads: Lessons Learned from First Field Application. Paper SPE 110895
Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA, 11–14 November.
http//dx.doi.org/10.2118/110895-MS.
Rees, M.J., Khallad, A., Cheng, A., Rispler, K.A., Surjaatmadja, J.B., and McDaniel, B.W. 2001. Successful HydraJet Acid Squeeze and
Multifracture Acid Treatments in Horizontal Open Holes Using Dynamic Diversion Process and/or Downhole Mixing. Paper SPE
12 SPE 164692

71692 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 1–3 October.
http//dx.doi.org/10.2118/71692-MS.
Surjaatmadja, J.B. 1998. Subterranean Formation Fracturing Methods. US Patent No. 5,765,642.
Surjaatmadja, J.B., Grundmann, S.R., McDaniel, B.W., Deeg, W.F.J., Brumley, J.L., and Swor, L.C. 1998. Hydrajet Fracturing: An
Effective Method for Placing Many Fractures in Openhole Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE 48856 presented at the SPE International
Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China, 2–6 November. http//dx.doi.org/10.2118/48856-MS.
Surjaatmadja, J.B., McDaniel, B.W., Cheng, A., Rispler, K., Rees, M.J., and Khallad, A. 2002. Successful Acid Treatments in Horizontal
Openholes Using Dynamic Diversion and Instant Response Downhole Mixing—An In-Depth Postjob Evaluation. Paper SPE 75522
presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 April–2 May. http//dx.doi.org/10.2118/75522-MS.
Surjaatmadja, J.B., Miranda, C., Rodrigues, V.F., das Graças, M., Silveira, M.A., Neumann, L.F., and Fernandes, P.D. 2005. Successful
Pin-Point Placement of Multiple Fractures in Highly Deviated Wells in Deep Water Offshore Brazil Fields. Paper SPE 95443
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9–12 October.
http//dx.doi.org/10.2118/95443-MS.
Surjaatmadja, J.B., Bezanson, J., Lindsay, S., Ventosilla, P., and Rispler, K. 2008. New Hydrajet Tool Gets Improved Life for Perforating
and Fracturing. World Oil 229 (7): 129–136.
Taylor, K.C., and Nasr-El-Din, H.A. 2001. Laboratory Evaluation of In-Situ Gelled Acids for Carbonate Reservoirs. Paper SPE 71694
Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September–3 October.
http//dx.doi.org/10.2118/71694-MS.
Van Gijtenbeek, K.; Surjaatmadja, J.B. and Heitman, C. 2010. Unique Hydrajet Tool Provides Cost Savings and Improved Performance in
Placing Many Perforations and Proppant Fractures in Horizontal Wellbores. Paper SPE 130255 Presented at the SPE Tight Gas
Completions Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2–3 November. http//dx.doi.org/10.2118/130255-MS.