COMPLETION/STIMULATION

Cracking Rock: Progress in Fracture Treatment Design

In the 1950s, hydraulic fracturing

was a hit-or-miss proposition.

Through the 60s and 70s, better

data quality and more sophisti-

cated models of rock mechanics

improved control over the fracture

job. Today, with cost-effective,

high-power computing, two-dimen-

sional (2D) models of fracture

propagation are giving way to a

three-dimensional (3D) approach.

Fracture treatment design has

never before been so powerful or

flexible a tool.

Barry Brady Bobby Poe

Jack Elbel Houston, Texas, USA
Mark Mack
Hugo Morales
Ken Nolte
Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA

For their help with this article, thanks to Larry Behrmann,
Schlumberger Perforating Center, Rosharon, Texas, USA;
Simon Bittleston, Schlumberger Cambridge Research,
Cambridge, England; CJ de Pater, Delft Technical Univer-
sity, The Netherlands; Cor Kenter and Jacob Shlyapober-
sky Koninklijke/Shell Exploratie en Produktie Laborato-
rium, Rijswijk, The Netherlands; Paul Martins, BP
Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, USA; and George
K. Wong, Shell Bellaire Research, Houston, Texas, USA.
In this article, NODAL, DataFRAC and ZODIAC (Zoned
Dynamic Interpretation Analysis and Computation) are
marks of Schlumberger. VAX is a mark of Digital Equip-
ment Corp. and Sun is a mark of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
The idea of hydraulically creating cracks in
a pay zone to enhance production was
developed in the 1920s by R.F. Farris of
Stanolind Oil and Gas Corp. He evolved the
concept following a study of pressures
encountered during squeezing of cement,
oil and water into formations. In 1947,
Stanolind (now Amoco Production Co.) per-
formed the first experimental hydraulic frac-
ture in the Klepper #1 gas well in Grant
County, Kansas, USA. Deliverability of the
well did not improve appreciably, but the
technique showed promise, and the follow-
ing year Stanolind presented a paper on the
“Hydrafrac” process.1 Halliburton Oil Well
Cementing Company obtained a license to
the process and, in 1949, performed the first
commercial fracturing treatments, raising
production of two wells “outstandingly.”2

4 Oilfield Review
 The method took off. By 1955, treatments
reached 3000 wells per month, and by
1968, more than a half-million jobs had
been performed. Today, hydraulic fracturing
is used in 35 to 40% of wells, and in the
United States, where the procedure is most
widespread, it has increased oil reserves by
25 to 30%.3 Interest in hydraulic fracturing
shows no signs of abating.4 Application of
the technology is expanding from mainly
October 1992
1. Clark JB: “A Hydraulic Process for Increasing the Pro- 4. Warpinski NR: “Invited Paper: Rock Mechanics Issues
ductivity of Wells,” Transactions of the AIME 186 in Completion and Stimulation Operations,” in Tiller-
(1949): 1-8. son JR and Wawersik WR (eds): Proceedings of the
2. Waters AB: “History of Hydraulic Fracturing,” pre- 33rd US Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Santa Fe,
sented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Symposium, New Mexico, USA (June 3-5, 1992): 375-386.
Lubbock, Texas, USA, 1982.
3. Veatch RW Jr, Moschovidis ZA and Fast CR: “An
Overview of Hydraulic Fracturing,” in Gidley JL,
Holditch SA, Nierode DE and Veatch RW Jr (eds):
Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph
12. Richardson, Texas, USA: Society of Petroleum
Engineers (1989): 1-38.
5
 4000
Pressure exerted by the pad initiates and
Tight gas; propagates the fracture. The slurry helps
3000 North American
goal of 10× Moderate/high extend the fracture and transports proppant.
increase perm; goal
Fracture treatments/yr

Remove activity declines; The fracture gradually fills until the prop-
gas deregulation of 2×
damage increase pant packs into the fracture tip (next page ).
At this point, the fracture treatment is fin-
2000 ished and pumping stops. As pressure
within the fracture declines, the fracture
closes on the proppant pack, ensuring that it
Middle East Improved remains in place, providing a conduit for
1000 imports to materials,
North America hydrocarbons. Productivity would be inhib-
understanding
ited by viscous fluid in the pad and slurry
OPEC supply restrictions that remains in the formation. However,
0 when the fluid’s high viscosity is no longer
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
needed, the high temperature of the forma-
Year
tion or special oxidizers cause the fluid
“break” to a lower viscosity, allowing it to
nChanging motivation for hydraulic fracturing. The three parts of the graph with posi- be produced back.5
tive slope indicate three motivations: initially, to remove damage, then to improve ten-
fold the productivity of tight gas sands, and today, to double productivity of medium- Hydraulic fracturing lies at the interface of
to high-permeability formations. fluid mechanics and rock mechanics. In the
45 years since the first fracture job, fluid sci-
low-permeability reservoirs to medium-to the faces of the fracture and prevent them ence has advanced significantly. Treatment
high-permeability settings (above ). from fitting closely together, or the fracture fluids have been diversified to handle many
Hydraulic fracturing is the pumping of flu- is packed with proppant (usually sand) to temperature, chemical and permeability
ids at rates and pressures sufficient to break hold it open. This article concentrates on conditions (see “Rewriting the Rules for
the rock, ideally forming a fracture with two the latter technique. High-Permeability Stimulation,” page 18).
wings of equal length on both sides of the Today, a typical fracturing treatment uses Additives control a range of fluid properties,
borehole. If pumping were stopped after the thickened fluids pumped in stages. The first such as viscosity, pH, stability and loss of
fracture was created, the fluids would grad- stage is a “pad” of water, a polymer and fluid to the formation, called leakoff.6 Many
ually leak off into the formation. Pressure additives. Then comes the slurry, which is proppants have been developed, from the
inside the fracture would fall and the frac- pad plus proppant—generally sand—in sus- standard silica sand to high-strength prop-
ture would close, generating no additional pension. Different concentrations of prop- pants, like sintered bauxite and zirconium
conductivity. To preserve a fracture once it pant and volumes of slurry are pumped as oxide particles, used where fracture closure
has been opened, either acid is used to etch the job progresses (below ). stress would crush sand.

Job Description Information

Stage Pump Fluid Stage Fluid Proppant Proppant Type Estimated Surface
Name Rate Name Volume Concentration + Mesh Pressure
bbl/min. gal lbm/gal psi

Pad 35 YF140 5000 0 INTERPROP + 20/40 5630

Slurry 35 YF140 9000 2 INTERPROP + 20/40 4610
Slurry 35 YF140 14,000 4 INTERPROP + 20/40 3760
Slurry 35 YF140 23,000 6 INTERPROP + 20/40 3080
Slurry 35 YF140 15,000 8 INTERPROP + 20/40 2460
Slurry 35 YF140 13,200 0 — 6170

nA typical pumping schedule for a
hydrofrac in a gas well in east Okla-
homa, USA. Each unit of fluid that
represents a change in proppant
concentration or flow rate or both is
called a stage; a specific sequence
of stages is called a pumping
schedule. This is a pumping sched-
ule to produce a 909-foot [277-m]
fracture. The pad fractures the rock
and helps transport the proppant,
which holds the fracture open after
pressure is released. A major com-
ponent of fracture design is estab-
lishing the volume and chemistry of
pad and slurry. Generally, the pad
6 Oilfield Review
is the largest stage, accounting for
30 to 50% of fluid, and, rarely, up to
70%. Ideally, to optimize the
propped fracture length, the pad is
completely leaked off at the
moment the fracture reaches its
intended length. If the pad leaks off
too soon, the fracture will be too
short; if too late, the fracture is not
effectively propped. In this well, five
slurry stages with different proppant
concentrations and volumes are
used, but as many as 17 or 20 slurry
stages may be used in large frac
jobs. The later slurry stages have
higher proppant concentrations
than earlier stages because the
slurry fluid leaks off as it travels
along the fracture. Therefore, a
slurry concentration that starts at the
wellbore as 2 lb of proppant per gal-
lon of fluid [240 kg/m3], may end up
as 8 lbm/gal [960 kg/m3] at the end
of pumping, and 44 lbm/gal [5270
kg/m3] when the fracture closes. In
this job, one proppant size is used
(20/40 refers to a standard sieve
mesh size that permits passage of a
particle with an average diameter of
0.63 mm [0.025 in.] ). A larger prop-
pant is sometimes used near the well-
bore to minimize turbulent flow,
which would decrease hydrocarbon
flow rate.
 Until recently, advances in rock mechan-
ics lagged somewhat behind those in fluid
technology. In the 1950s, there was no need
for a rigorous theory of fracture propagation,
the backbone of fracture treatment design.
Height, m
Low-volume, low-rate and low proppant
concentration fracture stimulation suc-
ceeded without careful design. But as treat-
ments grew in size and complexity, opera-
tors needed more control. Today more than
ever, the expense of hydraulic fracturing
requires that the operator knows how the
formation will respond to treatment, and
whether the treatment design—the selection
of pump rates, fluid properties, pumping
schedule and fracture propagation model—
will create the intended fracture (see “To
Frac or Not to Frac?” next page ).
Height, m
Pivotal to designing the treatment—and to
deciding whether to do one at all—is cost-
benefit analysis, relating cost of the fracture
job to increased well productivity. The more
fracture length for a given fracture conduc-
tivity, the more productivity, but also the
more costly the fracture job. This analysis,
called net present value, is done with simu-
lators that find the optimum fracture length
and conductivity for a given payback sched-
ule. Too short a fracture, or too low a con-
ductivity, and the increase in well produc-
tivity won’t cover the cost of the fracture
Height, m
treatment; too long, and the extra fracture
length will add significantly to cost but neg-
ligibly to production. Some simulators
model fracturing economics in longer terms;
they tell, for example, for a well with a
given deliverability, amortized at a certain
rate, how much should be spent on
hydraulic fracturing given a future oil price.
In the past few years, improvements in
fracture design have come from develop-
ments in several areas:
•Fracture geometry modeling. Mathemati-
cal models today can better predict how
in-situ rock responds to fracturing.
•Relationship of perforation design and
fracture initiation (see “The Shape of Per-
foration Strategy,” page 54 ). Careful
design of perforations can minimize pres-
sure drop at the borehole.
•Fracture treatment evaluation. Mathemati-
cal advances have also made evaluation
5. Gulbis J, Hawkins G, King M, Pulsinelli R, Brown E
tools more powerful. There is a growing
practice of testing the validity of the frac-
ture geometry model against postfracture
6. Overviews of fracturing fluids:
well test data, then refining the model.
This “back analysis” permits prediction of
fracture parameters, particularly fracture
length and conductivity, to be compared
with independent field measurements.
October 1992
25% slurry volume pumped
30
15
0
50% slurry volume pumped
30
15
0
75% slurry volume pumped
30
15
0
0 50 100
Distance, m
0 nAn investigational proppant transport
Proppant concentration, vol %
5 model, showing variation of proppant
concentration at three times during frac-
10 Initial turing. This simulation, by Simon Bittle-
fracture
15 geometry
ston at Schlumberger Cambridge
Research in England, predicts the final
20 at wellbore
distribution of proppant, used for quanti-
25 fying fracture conductivity. Yellow is no
proppant, green to dark blue is low to
30
high proppant concentrations, respec-
35 tively, and red is packed proppant. Slurry
65 is denser than pad so it tends to slump,
called gravity current. After 50% of the
slurry volume is pumped, a shower of set-
tling proppant appears as a light blue fog
and Elphick J: “Taking the Brakes off Proppant-Pack
near the tip of the propagating slurry.
Conductivity,” Oilfield Review 3, no. 1 (January
1991): 18-26. Falling proppant results in a packed bed
(red) along the bottom of the fracture. This
packed bed restricts downward growth of
Constien VG: “Fracturing Fluid and Proppant Charac-
the fracture. As a result of this proppant
terization,” in Economides MJ and Nolte KG (eds):
Reservoir Stimulation, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New distribution modeling, the pumping
schedule can be modified to optimize
Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall (1989): 5-1–5-23.
fracture design. Although still a research
Ely JW: “Fracturing Fluids and Additives,” in Gidley
JL, Holditch SA, Nierode DE and Veatch RW Jr (eds): tool, it may later be integrated into frac-
Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph ture design programs.
12. Richardson, Texas, USA: Society of Petroleum
Engineers (1989): 130-146.
7
 To Frac or Not to Frac?
Determine if the well is providing the maximum benefit, indicated
by return on investment and net present value.
Evaluate permeability and skin (near well damage) from well test.
Determine benefit using NODAL
analysis for various
combinations of:
•Recompletions (tubing size,
perforations, surface
equipment, artificial lift)
and
•Matrix treatments
(different materials and sizes)
or
•Fracture treatments
(different material and sizes).
Maximum benefit achieved for
recompletions only?
No
Perform matrix
treatment Yes Maximum benefit achieved after
(see “Trends in Matrix matrix treatment only?
Acidizing,” page 24).
No
Is maximum benefit achieved after
matrix treatment with recompletion?
No
Perform fracture Yes
treatment. Is maximum benefit achieved
after fracturing only?
No
Is maximum benefit achieved after
fracturing with recompletion?
No
Fracturing not needed.
Fracture Geometry Modeling
The need to understand hydraulic fracturing
stimulated advances in basic rock mechan-
ics. A key finding was of Hubbert and
Willis, in 1957, showing that fractures in the
earth are usually vertical, not horizontal.7
They reasoned that because a fracture is a
plane of parting in rock, the rock will open
in the direction of least resistance. At the
depth of most pay zones, overburden exerts
the greatest stress, so the direction of least
stress is therefore horizontal (next page,
top). Fractures open perpendicular to this
direction and are therefore vertical. In shal-
low wells, or where thrusting is active, hori-
zontal stress may exceed vertical stress and
horizontal fractures may form.
By the 1960s, fractures created below
1000 or 2000 ft [300 to 600 m] were
accepted as vertical. Operators then posed
some difficult questions: How high does the
fracture grow? How can we prevent it from
extending into the gas or water zone? How
Yes does fracture height relate to fracture width
Perform recompletion.
and length? And how do we optimize frac-
ture dimensions?
A major task of rock mechanics became
the prediction of fracture height, length and
width for a given injection rate, duration of
injection and fluid leakoff. Needed for this
prediction is a model of how a fracture
propagates in rock.
Yes Today, a number of models occupy a con-
Perform recompletion.
tinuum from 2D to pseudo-three-dimen-
sional (P3D) and fully 3D. The basic differ-
ence between 2D and P3D/3D models is
that in 2D models, fracture height is fixed or
set equal to length (that is, a semicircular
shape), whereas in P3D and 3D models,
fracture height, length and width can all
Yes vary somewhat independently. Two-dimen-
sional models have been around for about
Perform recompletion.
30 years; three-dimensional for about ten
years. Increased computing power has
recently made pseudo-3D models practical
for routine design. Fully 3D models have

7. Hubbert MK and Willis DG: “Mechanics of Hydraulic
Fracturing,” Transactions of the AIME 210 (1957):
153-166.
8. Barree RD: “A New Look at Fracture Tip Screenout
Behavior,” paper SPE 18955, presented at the SPE
Joint Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, Col-
orado, USA, March 6-8, 1989; Journal of Petroleum
Technology 43 (February 1991): 138-143.
Clifton RJ and Abou-Sayed AS: “A Variational
Approach to the Prediction of the Three-Dimensional
Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures,” paper SPE/DOE
9879, presented at the SPE/DOE Low-Permeability
Gas Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA,
May 27-29, 1981.
8 Oilfield Review
Clifton RJ: “Three-Dimensional Fracture-Propagation
Models,” in Gidley JL, Holditch SA, Nierode DE and
Veatch RW Jr (eds): Recent Advances in Hydraulic
Fracturing, Monograph 12. Richardson, Texas, USA:
Society of Petroleum Engineers (1989): 95-108.
Hongren G and Leung KH: “Three-Dimensional
Numerical Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Closure
with Application to Minifrac Analysis,” paper SPE
20657, presented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
USA, September 23-26, 1990.
9. The PKN model is from the work of Perkins and Kern,
revised by Nordgren to account for flow rate gradients
in the fracture.
Nordgren RP: “Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic
Fracture,” Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 12
(August 1972): 306-314; Transactions of the AIME 253.
Perkins TK and Kern LR: “Widths of Hydraulic Frac-
tures,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 13 (Septem-
ber 1961): 937-949; Transactions of the AIME 222.
10. Khristianovic SA and Zheltov YP: “Formation of Ver-
tical Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous Liquid,”
Proceedings, Fourth World Petroleum Congress,
Rome, Italy, section 2 (1955): 579-586.
Geertsma J and de Klerk FA: “Rapid Method of Pre-
dicting Width and Extent of Hydraulically Induced
Fractures,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 19
(December 1969): 1571-1581; Transactions of the
AIME 246.
11. Ahmed U: “Fracture-Height Predictions and Post-
Treatment Measurements,” in Economides MJ and
Nolte KG (eds): Reservoir Stimulation, 2nd ed.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall
(1989): 10-1–10-13.
12. Van Eekelen HAM: “Hydraulic Fracture Geometry:
Fracture Containment in Layered Formations,” paper
SPE 9261, presented at the 55th SPE Annual Techni-
cal Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA,
September 21-24, 1980.
limited use because of lengthy computation
time, but they are the way of the future.
State-of-the-art fully 3D models simulate
nonplanar fractures, but most commercial
versions are planar.8
Most 2D models are based on three com-
mon models: the Perkins-Kern-Nordgren9
(PKN) model, the Khristianovic-Geertsma-de
Klerk10 (KGD) model and the radial model
(below). The PKN and KGD models assume
fracture height is constant along the length
of the fracture; height is usually picked by
lithologic boundaries. Fracture length and
width are then calculated from height
(which may be estimated using acoustic log
data combined with modeling of fracture
mechanics and elastic properties11 ), Young’s
modulus, fluid viscosity, injection rate and
time and leakoff. In the radial model, frac-
ture length and height are equal and are
jointly allowed to vary. Width is also
allowed to vary.
The 3D approach is more realistic
because fracture height is not determined by
lithology but by vertical variation in the
magnitude of least principal stresses, which
often but not always follow lithologic units.
(The greater the vertical contrast in least
principal stresses, the better fracture height
is contained.12 )
Vertical
stress
Sv
St Max
horiz.
stress
Sr
nStresses in the earth act in three princi-
pal directions, one vertical, and two hori-
zontal, a maximum and a minimum. At
the borehole wall, these are vertical, S v ,
radial, S r , and tangential, S t . Vertical
stress induced by overburden usually
exceeds the two horizontal components.
This means a fracture will have the least
resistance to opening along a plane nor-
mal to the smallest principal stress.
Because this stress is horizontal, the frac-
ture will orient vertically. In areas of
active thrusting, and in some shallow
wells, a horizontal stress may exceed
overburden and the fracture will form
horizontally. Regional tectonic forces
determine the azimuthal orientation of the
least principal stresses and thus of the
fracture wings.
The emergence of 3D models has not
eclipsed 2D models. Two-dimensional mod-
els work where:
Min.
horiz. •The fracture grows in a formation of homo-
stress geneous stress and mechanical properties
so that fracture height is small compared
to formation layer thickness. The radial
model is appropriate in this setting.
•Stress contrasts are high between the pay
layer and neighboring formations and
these contrasts follow lithologic bound-
aries. The PKN or KGD models, which
assume constant height, are appropriate in
this setting.
When these conditions are absent, use of
2D models requires estimation of fracture
height based on the user’s experience and
knowledge. The consequences of underesti-
mating fracture height, for example, range
from disastrous to troublesome but manage-
able. The fracture may extend into a gas or
water leg, which can ruin a well. Underpre-
dicting fracture height overpredicts fracture
length because, for a given pump rate,
unanticipated doubling of fracture height
decreases length by about 50%, depending
on leakoff. If the fracture is shorter than pre-
dicted, it may not be as productive as fore-
cast. The pump schedule may be inappro-
priate, further cutting fracture conductivity.

2D Fracture Models

• Elliptical cross section nThe family of

to extend fracture
Pressure required

• Width ∝ height basic 2D fracture

• Width < KGD; models—PKN,
length > KGD GDK and radial.
PKN • More appropriate when
fracture length > height

Time
Fracture
height fixed

• Rectangular cross section

to extend fracture
Pressure required

• Width ∝ length
KGD • More appropriate when
fracture length < height

Time

• Appropriate when fracture

to extend fracture
Pressure required

Fracture length = height

height not Radial
fixed

Time

October 1992 9
 For example, proppant concentrations may
be excessive, causing proppant to plug the
fracture before flowing its full length, and
leaving some fracture length unpropped.13
The evolutionary step after 2D modeling
is P3D modeling.14 When conditions are
ideal for a 2D model—high, known stress
contrasts—the P3D model height prediction
may be more accurate than the estimated
height of the 2D model (below ). The advan-
tage of the P3D approach is that it does not
P3D Fracture require estimating fracture height, but it
2D versus P3D/3D Fracture Models
for Different Bed Boundary Stress Contrasts
High contrast Low contrast
2D
does require input of the magnitude of mini-
mum horizontal stress in the zone to be
fractured and in the zones immediately
above and below. (It calculates height using
this stress and the fluid pressure within the
fracture.) The stress values may be estimated
from a mechanical properties log, an indi-
rect measurement.
On a small scale, the best direct stress
measurement is from several microfracs,15
in which small fractures are created at sev-
eral wellbore locations (below ). Fracturing
fluid is usually water without proppant. On
the reservoir scale, determination of stress
and fluid loss is accomplished by a calibra-
tion treatment, in which a fracture is created
without proppant that is up to one-third the
length of the planned fracture. The engineer
analyzes the curve of pressure decline ver-
sus time after the rock has been fractured
(next page, top). Finding the fracture closure

4200
High contrast Low contrast

4600
Log
derived
Microfrac test

Well depth, ft
5000

P3D High contrast Low contrast

/3D
High contrast Low contrast
5400

5800
2200 2600 3000 3400
nA P3D fracture propagating from the borehole (top) and comparison of 2D, P3D/fully
3D models for high and low contrast in minimum horizontal stress between beds. A low Minimum horizontal stress, psi
stress contrast is on the order of a 100 psi [690 kilopascals (kPa)]; a high stress contrast
is greater than 1000 psi [6895 kPa]. Here, if one assumes that fracture height of the 2D nStress profile measured by
model is selected based on lithology, not on stress contrast, then the 2D fracture model microfrac and derived from wire-
stays within the beds. In the low-contrast case, the 2D model will probably overesti- line log data. Most correlations
mate fracture length and underestimate height, compared to the P3D/fully 3D models. between log-derived and mea-
In the low-contrast case, there would be a slight length and height difference between sured stresses are linear and
the P3D and fully 3D models. In the high-contrast case, the P3D and fully 3D models show more deviation than this
would predict about the same geometry. example.

13. Nierode DE: “Fracture Treatment Design,” in Gidley
JL, Holditch SA, Nierode DE and Veatch RW Jr (eds):
Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, Mono-
graph 12. Richardson, Texas, USA: Society of
Petroleum Engineers (1989): 223-244.
14. Ben-Naceur K: “Modeling of Hydraulic Fractures,”
in Economides MJ and Nolte KG (eds): Reservoir
Stimulation, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
USA: Prentice Hall (1989): 3-1–3-31.
15. Daneshy AA, Slusher GL, Chisholm PT and Magee 17. Martins JP, Bartel PA, Kelly RT, Ibe OE and Collins PJ:
DA: “In-Situ Stress Measurements During Drilling,” “Small Highly Conductive Hydraulic Fractures Near
Journal of Petroleum Engineering 38 (August 1986): Reservoir Fluid Contacts: Application to Prudhoe
891-898. Bay,” paper SPE 24856, presented at the 67th SPE
Sarda JP, Detienne JL and Lassus-Dessus J, “Recom- Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Wash-
mendations for Microfracturing Implementations ington DC, USA, October 4-7, 1992.
and the Interpretation of Micro- and Pre-Fractur-
ing,” Revue de l’Institut Français du Pétrole 47, no.
2 (March-April 1992): 179-204.
16. Nolte KG: “Fracture Pressure Analysis: Deviations
from Ideal Assumptions,” paper SPE 20704, pre-
sented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
September 23-26, 1990.

10 Oilfield Review
pressure, which equals the minimum hori- nEffect of closure
zontal stress, requires interpretation of the Pressure decline stress on a pres-
9000 Fracture
slopes, which is open to ambiguity.16 The sure/time curve. In

Bottomhole pressure, psi

treatment Fracture this idealized
drawback of the microfrac method is its
closing example, interpre-
high cost and insensitivity to stress variation 8000
tation of the slope
from well to well and across a field. The Fracture closes to find horizontal
on proppant
leakoff estimation is also complicated when stress is straightfor-
7000
fractures grow into impermeable layers, ward. Changes in
Reservoir curve slope are not
where leakoff will not be proportional to Closure pressure = pressure always so clear.
fracture area. 6000 minimum horizontal rock stress
P3D models assume a simplified repre-
sentation of fluid flow in the fracture. This 5000
assumption is made mainly to shorten com- 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 56 58

putation time, but it may result in inaccurate Time, hr

estimation of fracture height. This is because
pressure distribution in the fracture, which
controls growth of fracture height, is gener-
ated by the fluid flow.
Although this problem seems simple
enough to solve, it requires the leap to fully
3D modeling of fracture geometry. Fully 3D
simulators are difficult to use—they require
accurate stress contrast data—and so are not
widely employed, but the theory permits the
closest approximation of what fractures
really do. The two main differences
between fully 3D and P3D are in how they
handle fluid flow and pressure calculation
along the fracture. Fully 3D geometry mod-
els use a fully 2D model of fluid flow,
whereas P3D models approximate the 2D
fluid flow. In a fully 3D geometry model,
pressure everywhere is used to calculate
fracture width at any point. Width is gener-
ally calculated using the “pressure integral”
along the total fracture length and height. In
the P3D model, the pressure-width relation
is simplified to improve efficiency, usually
by considering only particular shapes, such
as ellipses, or by neglecting variation of
pressure along the fracture length.
At BP, fully 3D models are not used rou-
tinely because of lack of appropriate input
300 nPressure versus
Pressure required to extend fracture, psi
time for lateral
coupling com-
250 pared with tradi-
Lateral tional fracture
coupling models.
200
PKN
150
KGD
100
50
0 20 40 60 80
Time, min
data. They are used to understand fracture and P3D modeling, it doubles or triples
propagation in a particular field.17 Where computation time, but improves estimation
fracture containment is poor, 3D models of fracture height and fracture pressure dur-
have been used to assist microfrac interpre- ing treatment (above ).
tations and to generate simple models for A third evolutionary stage, multilayer frac-
routine fracture design. These simple mod- ture (MLF) modeling, takes one step back in
els are refined by posttreatment evaluation. order to take two steps forward. The MLF
The “pressure integral” advantage of the simulator is a revision of PKN modeling that
fully 3D model has been introduced to PKN permits describing the geometry of more
and P3D models using a method called lat- than one fracture forming in more than one
eral coupling. This is a way to introduce 3D layer and then planning the appropriate
elasticity to models that don’t include it.
Mathematically, lateral coupling puts back a
gross approximation of the pressure integral
along the fracture length. This poor-man’s
integral couples pressures at points along
the fracture, instead of considering them in
isolation. Compared with conventional PKN

October 1992 11
pumping schedule.18 (below ). Multilayer
modeling was needed as more reservoirs
were exploited in which conventional mod-
eling has limitations. This is often the case
when stress barriers prevent the coalescing
of fractures in multiple zones or where lay-
ers of varying thicknesses and stress magni-
tudes are to be fractured.
The MLF approach indicates whether a
single treatment or separate treatments are
needed to achieve optimum geometry of
fractures in multiple zones. If separate treat-
ments are needed for the desired penetra-
tion in each layer, the MLF simulator may
be used to determine how many are
required. It can also help in planning lim-
ited entry perforating—varying the number
of perforations in each layer, depending on
layer thickness and stress state, to achieve
the desired fracture geometry. (Fewer perfo-
rations in the layer taking the most fluid
restricts flow and diverts it into other layers.)
Inputs to the MLF model are the same as
for P3D: stress profile, Young’s Modulus and
leakoff for each formation. The model dif-
fers from existing descriptions of multilayer
fracturing in that it quantifies transient fluid
partitioning during pumping as a function of
fracturing fluid and formation properties.
Existing models calculate partitioning only
at a single time or for a limited number of
formation characteristics.19
The MLF model also allows the prediction
of crossflow between fractures after pump-
ing stops and before all the fractures close.
Matching the predicted and measured cross-
flow permits a more accurate prediction of
the parameters that determine fluid volume
that enters each zone, and the resulting frac-
ture length and height.
With the arrival of the MLF model, the
engineer can choose from five general types
of fracture propagation models. Selection of
the right model is critical. Even slight differ-
ences between modeled and actual fracture
dimensions can translate to dramatic differ-
ences in required proppant concentration
and weight, and pad volume (next page ).
Usually, PKN, KGD and radial models are
chosen with a chain of empirical deduc-
tions. The engineer estimates the shape of
the induced fracture—if length exceeds
height, it’s PKN; if length is less than height,
it’s KGD. This value is based the sand thick-
ness to be fractured, proximity to gas, water
or other fractures and estimation of the
stress contrast between the reservoir section
and abutting formations, usually shales. The
stress contrast estimate is often valid when
the well has clean sands and clean shales.
The estimate becomes tenuous in silty shale,
which may have the same stress magnitude
as sand but may poorly contain fracture
height. Again, the best measurement of
stress is obtained from a microfrac.
The Perf and the Frac: What’s the Link?
Field wisdom holds that the ideal perfora-
tion lies in the plane normal to the mini-
mum far-field stress direction. This perfora-
tion links most directly with the induced
fracture, minimizing pressure drop near the
borehole. Other perforations probably con-
nect with the fracture indirectly, if at all. But
because fracture azimuth is generally not
known and because alignable perforating
guns are not readily available, conventional
guns shooting at closely spaced angles
around 360° are generally used. These are
called phased guns. The closer the angle
(phasing) between perforations, the better
chance of having more perforations in or
near the ideal plane. Not until recently,
however, were large-scale experiments per-
formed to evaluate the relationship between
perforations and hydraulic fractures.
Behrmann and Elbel of Schlumberger and
Dowell Schlumberger, respectively, used
full-scale perforators on steel casing
cemented into sandstone blocks placed in a

Gamma
ray Layered beds 2D P3D MLF
Perfs
Perfs

Shale Sand
nComparison of 2D, P3D and multilayer fracture (MLF) models in a multilayer setting. In the 2D model, fracture
height is selected to be limited by the top of the upper sand and bottom of the lower sand. The fracture is consid-
ered to grow simultaneously from both sands and to be of uniform length. Young’s Modulus is averaged for the
two sands and the shale between them. In the P3D model, the fracture grows from one sand to the other, but not
simultaneously as in the 2D model. In both the 2D and P3D models, fracture lengths are equal for both the thick
and thin sands. In the MLF model, which uses a modified PKN model, fracture lengths and heights are unequal.
Length depends on fracture height, stress magnitude and Young’s Modulus. As with other 2D models, height is
selected for each layer, here by lithologic boundaries. The next generation MLF model will adapt P3D modeling.

12 Oilfield Review

1.0
Treatment cost, $ ×106
0.75
0.50
0.25
0 0
0 750
Fracture half-length, ft
2.5
Proppant weight, lb ×106
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0 400
0 750
Fracture half-length, ft
Comparison of Fracture-Design Calculations for Different Fracturing Models
Pad volume, bbl
Proppant-laden fluid volume, bbl
Average sand concentration, lbm/gal
Total amount of sand, lbm
Viscosity after pad, cp
Created fracture length, ft
Effective fracture length, ft
Created fracture width, in.
Effective fracture width, in.
Effective fracture height, ft
Average fracture conductivity, darcy-ft
Adapted from Veatch RW Jr, et al, reference 3.
nComparison of fracture properties for PKN and KGD fractures (top four graphs) and for
three fracture models (bottom).
triaxial stress cell. 20 They made several
observations about the relationship between
perforation orientation and stress direction.
They found that fractures initiate from the
wellbore wall in the optimum hydraulic
fracture direction, from perforations nearest
this direction, or both. Fractures tend not to
form at other perforations.
The best perforation-to-fracture communi-
cation is achieved when perforations are
within 10° of the far-field minimum hori-
zontal stress. This means that perforations
not optimally oriented may result in a large
pressure drop, or proppant bridging, when
October 1992
sandstone blocks, found that slow pumping
2000 of low-viscosity prepad has another effect: it
Fracture penetration, ft
PKN maximizes the number of fractures initiated
1500 at perforations suboptimally aligned. More
KGD
KGD work is needed to determine whether
1000 increasing suboptimally aligned fractures
PKN reduces pressure drop at the well, which
500 would improve deliverability.
Pearson and colleagues at ARCO Alaska
Inc. aligned perforations normal to the min-
1500 2250 3000 0 80,000 160,000 240,000
Fluid volume, gal imum far-field stress in deviated wells. They
used perforating guns with a downhole ori-
2900
Fracture conductivity, md-ft
entation motor in conjunction with real-
KGD time navigation tools. This enabled place-
2400
KGD ment of larger, more productive fractures.21
1900 Pearson and colleagues suspect that post-
treatment skin damage may be associated
1400
PKN
PKN with pressure drops from poor communica-
900 tion between the main fracture and frac-
tures from perforations that are not aligned
1500 2250 3000 0 750 1500 2250 3000 normal to the minimum far-field stress.
Fracture half-length, ft Analysis of the ARCO results by CJ de Pater
and colleagues at Delft Technical Univer-
sity in The Netherlands suggests that Pear-
son’s results may be inconclusive.22 Pear-
son and colleagues changed a number of
KGD Perkins-Kern Nordgren parameters (such as multiple zone to single
750 1,350 1,650 zone perforation and gun size) that may
1,250 650 350 have equally explained their ability to place
larger treatments.
3 2.5 3.5
157,500 68,350 51,000 18. Elbel JL, Piggott AR and Mack MG: “Numerical
36 36 36 Modeling of Multilayer Fracture Treatments,” paper
SPE 23982, presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil
698 804 845 and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas,
USA, March 18-20, 1992; Journal of Petroleum
486 240 185 Technology 43 (May 1991): 608-615.
0.22 0.17 0.16 19. Ahmed U, Newberry BM and Cannon DE: “Hydraulic
Fracture Treatment Design of Wells with Multiple
0.20 0.16 0.16 Zones,” paper SPE/DOE 13857, presented at the
SPE/DOE 1985 Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs Sym-
98 94 85 posium, Denver, Colorado, USA, May 19-22, 1985.
7.1 6.5 6.5 Ben-Naceur K and Roegiers J-C: ”Design of Fractur-
ing Treatments in Multilayered Formations,” SPE
Production Engineering 5 (February 1990): 21-26.
20. Berhmann LA and Elbel JL: “Effect of Perforations on
Fracture Initiation,” paper SPE 20661, presented at
the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, Septem-
pad and slurry flow around the annulus to ber 23-26, 1990.
the fracture. As expected, the maximum 21. Pearson CM, Bond AJ, Eck ME and Schmidt JH:
“Results of Stress-Oriented and Aligned Perforating
number of perforations in communication in Fracturing Deviated Wells,” paper SPE 22836,
with the fracture is achieved with a perforat- presented at the 66th SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-
ing gun having the smallest possible angle 9, 1991.
between shots. For details of the aligned and oriented perforating
Another finding of Berhmann and Elbel technique:
concerns pump rate and viscosity of the Yew CH, Schmidt JH and Yi L: “On Fracture Design
of Deviated Wells,” paper SPE 19722, presented at
prepad, a low-viscosity fluid sometimes the 64th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
pumped ahead of the pad. It has been long bition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, October 8-11, 1989.
recognized that a prepad can increase pore 22. de Pater CJ, personal communication, 1992.
pressure, and thereby decrease fracture initi-
ation pressure. The lower the initiation pres-
sure, the lower the pressure required.
Behrmann and Elbel, after cutting apart the
13
Enhanced Fracture Treatment
Evaluation
Fracture design may be fine-tuned by care-
ful postjob evaluation. This tells whether the
job went as planned, and tests the validity
of the plan and the variables on which it
was based (see “Design of an Ideal Fracture
Treatment,” next page). Postfracture evalua-
tion requires a drawdown and buildup test,
which indicates fracture skin and whether
the actual fracture length and conductivity
match those planned. This testing is not a
common procedure because operators are
usually hesitant to stop production for the
10 to 14 days required for the buildup. But
in some fields, the practice is becoming
more common in a few, select wells. For
example, in BP’s Ravenspurn South field in
the UK sector of the North Sea, an extensive
program of data collection and analysis was
performed on the first six development
wells. This included extensive pre-and post-
frac well testing, logging and recording of
bottomhole pressures during job execution.
The program helped optimization of job
design for the remainder of the field, leading
to significant reduction in the number of
wells required.23
A typical problem is that posttreatment
transient pressure analysis shows the frac-
ture is shorter than indicated by the volume
and leakoff of pumped fluid. There could be
several reasons for the disparity. A common
reason, however, is that most postfracture
evaluation models assume ideal reservoir
conditions—homogeneous and isotropic
formations, uniform fracture width and con-
ductivity and absence of skin damage.24
To get away from assuming ideal reservoir
conditions, Schlumberger has made several
improvements to the ZODIAC Zoned
Dynamic Interpretation, Analysis and Com-
putation program. This program improves
evaluation by accounting for variation in
fracture conductivity and width along the
fracture length, for reservoir permeability
anisotropy and for fracture face skin dam-
23. Martins JP, Leung KH, Jackson MR, Stewart DR and
Carr AH: “Tip Screen Out Fracturing Applied to the
Ravenspurn South Gas Field Development,” paper
SPE 19766, presented at the 64th SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, October 8-11, 1989.
24. Walsh DM and Leung KH: “Post Fracturing Gas Well
Test Analysis Using Buildup Type Curves” paper SPE
19253, Offshore Europe 1989, Aberdeen, Scotland,
September 5-8, 1989.
25. Poe BD, Shah PC and Elbel JC: “Pressure Transient
Behavior of a Finite Conductivity Fractured Well
With Spatially Varying Fracture Properties,” paper
SPE 24707, presented at the 67th SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Washington DC,
USA, October 4-7, 1992.
14
Conventional
postfracture well test
ZODIAC / P3D
nPostfracture interpretation of fracture
geometry by conventional pressure tran-
sient analysis and with the ZODIAC pro-
gram. The main difference is that con-
ventional analysis does not account for
spatial variation in fracture conductivity
and width, assumes fracture height
equals bed thickness, and ignores frac-
ture face skin damage. The blue area is
ignored in the conventional analysis.
age.25 It also does not link fracture height
with bed thickness (above ), but uses a P3D
approach to permit variation in propped
fracture height and width in the analysis.
Compared to conventional postfracture
pressure transient analysis, the program
takes 10 to 15% more computer time on a
VAX or Sun workstation. In the future, it will
include capabilities to model the effects of
reservoir boundaries and high-velocity flow
on fracture length and conductivity esti-
mates. The effects of reservoir boundaries
are often observed in transient tests of long
duration. These effects can be used to esti-
mate the area and shape of the drainage
area of the well.
The Fracture Frontier: Rock Mechanics
Today, the center of controversy in fractur-
ing is a fundamental concept called fracture
toughness, a measure of energy dissipated
by fracture growth. Established thinking
holds that fracture toughness is a material
property that is independent of fracture size.
The focus is on energy dissipated at the frac-
ture tip, considered to be a very small zone.
26. Shlyapobersky J, Walhaug WW, Sheffield RE and
Huckabee PT: “Field Determination of Fracturing
Parameters for Overpressure Calibrated Design of
Hydraulic Fracturing,” paper SPE 18195, presented
at the 63rd SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, October 2-5, 1988.
Shlyapobersky J, Wong GK and Walhaung WW:
“Overpressure Calibrated Design of Hydraulic Frac-
turing,” paper SPE 18194, presented at the 63rd SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Hous-
ton, Texas, USA, October 2-5, 1988.
Lewis PE: “Analysis of Treatment Data Yields Cost-
Effective Fracturing,” The American Oil and Gas
Reporter 35, no. 1 (January 1992): 32-34, 36-38.
Shlyapobersky J: “Energy Analysis of Hydraulic Frac-
turing,” Proceedings of the 26th US Symposium on
Rock Mechanics, Rapid City, South Dakota, USA
(June 26-28, 1985): 539-546.
Another school of thought, led by investiga-
tors at Shell, mainly Jacob Shlyapobersky,
maintains that fracture toughness is not a
material property, and that it increases with
fracture size.26 This point of view holds that
fracture toughness is the release of energy
not at the fracture tip but within a large
zone of irreversible deformation around the
fracture tip. The volume of this zone is
thought to increase with fracture size.
These two views lead to different explana-
tions for the creation of fracture width,
which is directly related to net pressure
(fracture propagation pressure minus closure
pressure). The size-dependent school says
fracture width is larger and only weakly
affected by fracture fluid viscosity—that is,
that net pressure is not sensitive to viscosity.
This is because net pressure, in order to
overcome the large, size-dependent tough-
ness, creates a fracture width large enough
to make viscous flow effects negligible.
According to established thinking, because
toughness is not size-dependent and has a
conventional magnitude, pressure gradients
from viscous flow dominate the toughness
effect and fracturing, and create smaller
fractures than those modeled by the size-
dependent toughness school.
The two schools, therefore, have different
calculations of fracture length and required
pad volume. The size-dependent school
maintains that the established view will
underestimate width and therefore overesti-
mate fracture length for a given fracture vol-
ume. This is because net pressure, accord-
ing to the established view, is determined
mainly by viscosity and not, as the size
school holds, by viscosity and increasing
fracture toughness. The established view
maintains that apparent error in estimation
of fracture length and width does not result
from size-dependent toughness but from use
of an inappropriate fracture geometry or
reservoir model.27
Another area of investigation concerns the
assumption that rock behaves as a purely
Shlyapobersky J and Chudnovsky A: “Fracture
Mechanics in Hydraulic Fracturing,” in Tillerson JR
and Wawersik WR (eds): Proceedings of the 33rd
US Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Santa Fe, New
Mexico, USA (June 3-5, 1992): 827-836.
27. Elbel J and Ayoub J: “Evaluation of Apparent Fracture
Lengths Indicated From Transient Tests,” paper
CIM/AOSTRA 91-44, presented at the CIM/AOSTRA
Technical Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada, April
21-24, 1991; Canadian Journal of Petroleum Tech-
nology (in press).
Nolte KG and Economides MJ: “Fracture Length
Determination and Implications for Treatment
Design,” paper SPE 18979, presented at the SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reser-
voir Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
USA, March 6-8, 1989; Journal of Petroleum Engi-
neering 43 (September 1991): 1147-1155.
Oilfield Review
 Design of an Ideal Fracture Treatment

Obtain stress magnitude and Young’s

Modulus1 versus depth from logs, cores.
Also collect other well and formation
information: lithology, natural fracture
Improved or expanded stress
locations, porosity. Check offset well data.
and modulus data.

If appropriate fracture geometry model not

Test for different fracture known, do microfrac (1/3 to 1/2 length of
model or less length. actual job, no proppant) to select fracture
geometry model (2D, P3D, MLF).

Select fluids and additives that minimize

Fracture skin or lower fracture
formation and proppant damage and
conductivity?
environmental impact.

Frac model revision.

Different reservoir model
permeability? Is reservoir

Stress revision.
Obtain permeability and reservoir pressure

Fluid revision.
anisotropic? Layered? from well test; porosity from logs.
Stress sensitive?

If not done earlier, perform microfrac to

determine correct model, fluid loss
coefficient and treatment efficiency (volume Iteration for revisions.
of fluid pumped versus volume of fracture,
determined mainly by leakoff).

Different fracture geometry Use net present value (NPV) calculation to

model or length? select proppant, optimize pump schedule
and fracture length, and predict production.

Finalize pump schedule with PLACEMENT

program. The program gives pressure
required during job, frac length at end of
job and distribution of proppant.

Execute job.

Do well test and use ZODIAC

program to evaluate fracture No
treatment and reservoir Is well producing as expected?
characterization.
Yes

Analyze bottomhole pressure No Yes

Was bottomhole pressure Fracture treatment
during execution with various
during execution as expected? design is optimal.
fracture models.

1. Young’s Modulus is the ratio of stress (force per unit area) to strain (displacement per unit length).

October 1992 15
elastic continuum, meaning that deforma-
tion short of fracturing is fully reversible.
There is evidence that high-permeability/
high-porosity formations may be elastoplas-
tic, meaning they have some component of
irreversible deformation (below ). Further
work on this is becoming possible with the
increase in computer power needed to solve
equations for nonelastic behavior, which are
far more complex than those for elastic
behavior. Significant nonelastic behavior
would affect the prediction of fracture
geometry and the analysis of fracture pres-
sure data.
The Fracture Frontier: High-Angle Wells
Field experience in highly deviated and hor-
izontal wells shows that it is possible to per-
form hydraulic fracturing in these settings,
but the effect on well performance is still
uncertain. Little has been published on the
effect of fracturing on deviated well perfor-
mance. 28 Shell investigators found that
reduced productivity is expected from a
fractured deviated well compared to a frac-
tured vertical well.29 This is because the axis
of the wellbore may not lie in the preferred
fracture plane and may intersect the fracture
over only a small reservoir interval. This
results in limited communication to the
borehole during fracturing and a pressure
drop that inhibits productivity. In the Prud-
hoe Bay field, BP has found that fracturing
can impair the performance of highly devi-
ated wells.30
Nevertheless, the increasing number of
deviated and horizontal wells has inspired
work on fracture modeling in these settings.
Today, fracture treatment design in these
wells is largely by rule of thumb. But several
observations have been made by Hallam
and Last of BP that can enhance treatment
design in deviated wells:31
•When perforation tunnels are not normal
to the minimum stress, fractures reorient
in the preferred direction. If tunnels are
short compared to their spacing, the frac-
tures will curve before linking up, result-
ing in further pressure drop. Perforation
length should therefore be at least one-
third to one-half tunnel separation, that is,
4 to 6 in. [10 to 15 centimeters (cm)].
•Perforation densities should be 6 shots/ft
at 60° phasing and 360/φ shots/ft for φ°
phasing.
•A single large fracture is more productive
than several smaller ones that may not
link up. Hallam and Last constructed an
empirical curve showing the maximum
borehole deviation that will allow devel-
opment of a single fracture.
Hallam and Last made these observations
based on studies in which they cemented or
cast a liner in a block of rock, then loaded
it. Work by CJ de Pater and colleagues
shows that if the block is first loaded, then
the liner is cemented, fracture geometry will
be different.32
Work by Hugo Morales at Dowell
Schlumberger, using a 3D fracture simulator
that permits curved fractures, shows that
fracture initiation pressure can be calculated
for deviated wells, given well inclination,
azimuth and direction of principal stresses.
But once the fracture starts, there is not yet a
calculation for propagation pressure. This is
because fracture propagation models do not
address how multiple fractures affect near-
borehole stresses. A general recommenda-
tion, however, is that flow rate should be
high enough to reduce bridging of proppant
associated with pressure drops of multiple,
small fractures (next page ).
An evolving capability is triaxial borehole
seismic imaging—listening from three direc-
tions to sound emitted by the fracture as it
closes, then triangulating its location to find

Conceptual Deformation Models

Continuous Planes of Discrete Random

solid Fracture continuous weakness blocks fractures

Elastic/brittle or Elastic and discontinuous plastic Plastic

elastoplastic

CONTINUUM

nSeveral modes of rock response to stress. In rock mechanical terms, they are elastic continuous deformation,
brittle failure, discontinuous deformation of block-jointed rock, and pseudocontinuous deformation and plas-
tic yield of heavily fractured rock. Current theories of fracturing and treatment design are limited because
they use elastic continuous deformation and brittle failure almost exclusively.

16 Oilfield Review
fracture length.33 This would provide valu-
able feedback in development of fracture
propagation models. Still, the weakest link
in the models is probably stress magnitude
determination. A confident measurement of
stress, by an economical and practical
Min.
method, would provide the required data horizontal
for evolving a fracture propagation model. stress
Probably as important as technical
improvements is a change in the engineer-
ing mindset. “If only I had a fully 3D model, Max.
all my problems would go away” is perhaps horizontal
stress
just half true. Often, the most sophisticated
fracture propagation models and fracture
treatment designs are undermined by some-
thing as simple and elusive as bad perme-
ability data. In 3D modeling, major limita-
Max.
tions remain in input data—it is still difficult horizontal Min.
stress horizontal
to obtain valid stress profiles, fluid-loss pro- stress
files and fracture conductivities.
Today, fully 3D models help generate sim-
pler models for routine application. Careful
postfracture evaluation allows the engineer
to tune fracture design, yielding the most
from the simplest approaches. Tomorrow,
increased computer power may place the
curving fracture of varying height and width
within reach of engineers in the field. —JMK

28. One notable paper on the subject to date: Ovens J:

“The Performance of Hydraulically Fractured Stimu-
lated Wells in Tight Gas Sands: A Southern North
Sea Example,” paper SPE 20972, presented at
Europec 90, The Hague, The Netherlands, October
22-24, 1990.
An overview of fracturing horizontal wells:
Soliman MY, Hunt JL and El Rabaa AM: “Fracturing
Aspects of Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 18542, pre-
sented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Charleston, West Virginia, USA, November 1-4,
Minimum
1988; Journal of Petroleum Technology 42 (August
horizontal stress
1990): 966-973.
Brown E, Thomas R and Milne A: “The Challenge of
Completing and Stimulating Horizontal Wells,” Oil-
field Review 2, no. 3 (October 1990): 52-62.
29. Veeken CAM, Davies DR and Walters JV: “Limited Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
Communication Between Hydraulic Fracture and
(Deviated) Wellbore,” paper SPE 18982, presented
at the SPE Joint Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Per- nOrientation of hydraulic fractures in horizontal wells as a function of stress directions
meability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, (top) and, in a deviated well, evolution of small, multiple fractures that may contribute
Denver, Colorado, USA, March 6-8, 1989. to pressure drop at the wellbore (bottom). In the horizontal well example, only one large
30. Martins JP, Dyke GC, Abel JC, Ibe OE, Stewart G, fracture forms if the wellbore axis is normal to the minimum horizontal stress. If the
Bartel PA and Hanna RR: “Analysis of a Hydraulic wellbore axis parallels the minimum horizontal stress, fractures form at each perfora-
Fracturing Program Performed on the Prudhoe Bay tion. The end fractures are highest because they are affected on only one side by the
Oil Field,” paper SPE 24858, presented at the 67th
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
compressive stress exerted by the opening of the neighboring fracture. Height of these
Washington, DC, USA, October 4-7, 1992. end fractures tends not to exceed 2 to 3 borehole diameters. The time-lapse view (bot-
31. Hallam SD and Last NC: “Geometry of Hydraulic
tom) shows fractures developing tails that reach up and down the wellbore. By time 3,
Fractures From Modestly Deviated Wellbores,” they coalesce into one fracture. In so doing, rhomboids of rock are isolated between the
paper SPE 20656, presented at the 65th SPE Annual perforations. Small fractures develop here that may contribute to pressure drop at the
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, wellbore and early bridging of proppant.
Louisiana, USA, September 23-26, 1990.
32. de Pater CJ, personal communication, 1992.
33. Vinegar HJ, Willis PB, DeMartini DC, Shlyapobersky
J, Deeg WFJ, Adair RG, Woerpel JC, Fix JE and Sor-
rells GG: “Active and Passive Seismic Imaging of
Hydraulic Fractures in Diatomite,” paper SPE
22756, presented at the 66th SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA,
October 6-9, 1991.

October 1992 17
 COMPLETION/STIMULATION
Rewriting the Rules for High-Permeability Stimulation
Stimulation of high-permeability formations has long been the domain of matrix treatments.
Now, short, wide fractures are being created to
Bob Hanna A classic fracture stimulation creates nar-
BP Exploration Inc. row conduits that reach deep into a forma-
Houston, Texas, USA tion—typically, about 1/10 in. [2.5 millime-
ters] wide and up to 1000 ft [300 m] long.
Joseph Ayoub Since the 1940s, relatively low-permeabil-
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
ity formations—less than 20 millidarcies
(md)—have been successfully fractured to
Bob Cooper
give worthwhile increases in productivity.
Houston, Texas, USA However, as formation permeability
increases, creating and propagating frac-
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Paul
tures become more difficult and economi-
cally less necessary. In high-permeability
Martins, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage,
Alaska, USA; and Jack Elbel and Richard Marcinew, reservoirs, formation damage is usually
Dowell Schlumberger, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
diagnosed as the major restraint on produc-
tivity and matrix acidization treatments are
prescribed as the solution (see “Trends in
Matrix Acidizing,” page 24).
But matrix acidization cannot solve every
problem. The volume of damaged rock
sometimes requires uneconomically large
quantities of acid. The damage may be
beyond the reach of the matrix treatment.
Diverting acid into the right parts of the for-
mation may also be difficult. Additionally,
the aqueous treatment fluid or the acid
itself may threaten the integrity of the well-
bore by dissolving cementing material that
holds particles of rock together.
An alternative strategy for stimulating
high-permeability wells has therefore
emerged: the creation of fractures that are
typically less than 100 ft [30 m] long and
18
Undamaged reservoir
Damage
Short, wide fracture
nShort, wide fractures bypass widespread
formation damage and link undamaged
rock with the wellbore.
up to 1 in. [2.5 centimeters] wide after clo-
sure (above ). To appreciate how short, wide
fractures stimulate high-permeability forma-
tions, one must examine the factors govern-
ing postfracture productivity.
The permeability contrast between the
formation and the propped fracture is a key
determinant of the optimum fracture length.
In low-permeability formations there is a
large contrast—and therefore a high relative
conductivity—and increased fracture length
can yield improved productivity (next page ).
In high-permeability formations, relative
conductivity is about two orders of magni-
tude smaller. Increasing the length of con-
ventional fractures offers only minimal
improvement in productivity and cannot be
justified economically. However, the pro-
ductive performance of the fracture is deter-
mined by the dimensionless fracture con-
ductivity which is directly proportional to
the fracture width.1 Conductivity can be
raised by increasing fracture width; in high-
permeability formations, this offers signifi-
cant potential improvements in productivity.
Oilfield Review
reach beyond wellbore damage and provide a conduit to undamaged reservoir rock.

Pinpointing the birthplace of high-perme-

High-permeability
ability fracturing is difficult, but it is clear formations
that work carried out by Sohio Petroleum 1.0

fracture length/drainage radius (x f /re)

0.9
Co. (now BP Exploration Inc.) inspired Low-permeability
0.8
much of today’s thinking. In 1984, in Prud- formations
0.7
hoe Bay, Alaska, USA, Sohio fractured a

Length of fracture,
0.6
Increasing productivity

well with a permeability of about 60 md. 0.5

The overriding aim of the exercise was to
stimulate the well while avoiding fracturing 0.4
into the oil/water contact (OWC) about 115 0.3
ft [35 m] below the lowermost perforation.2
In a relatively small fracturing treatment, 0.2

some 15,000 gal [57 m3] of gelled fluid 0.1

were pumped at 45 bbl/min, placing 12,000
lb [5440 kg] of proppant in the fracture.
This treatment was calculated to be suffi-
cient to create a fracture with a propped 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6

length of 43 ft [13 m], which, based on the Relative conductivity

assumption that one foot of lateral exten-
sion would result in one foot of downward
fracture migration, left the fracture easily
short of the OWC. The treatment was a
mechanical success and production
increased by 133%—versus a theoretical
maximum of 160%.
Rather than quantify fracture width, con-
ventional terminology uses proppant con-
centration—most commonly stated as
pounds of proppant per square foot of frac-
ture [lbm/ft2 ]—which is directly proportional
to the width. A conventional, long and nar-
row fracture may contain 0.5 lbm/ft 2 of
proppant. The Sohio job was designed to
place 1 lbm/ft2—modest by today’s stan-
dards, which aspire to place 4 lbm/ft2 or more.
After this job, attention shifted to the
North Sea. The Valhal field, offshore Nor-
way, has a soft chalk reservoir. Amoco Pro-
duction Co. found that, although the forma-
tion was not highly permeable (about 2 md)
nIncrease in posttreatment productivity versus relative fracture
conductivity—proportional to the permeability contrast between
the formation and propped fracture—for a variety of fracture
lengths (shown as fracture length/drainage radius). In these curves
for steady-state production, a normal, low-permeability fracture
treatment has a relative conductivity on the order of 10 5. Conse-
quently, there is scope to increase productivity by increasing
fracture length.
But for high-permeability formations, relative conductivity is
about 10 3, and an increase in fracture length makes virtually no
difference. However, if a wider fracture can be created, fracture
conductivity is increased, yielding a higher relative conductiv-
ity. This increases productivity for a given fracture length and
offers the chance of raising productivity by increasing the frac-
ture length.
Adapted from McGuire WJ and Sikora VJ: “The Effect of Vertical
Fractures on Well Productivity,” Transactions of the AIME 219 (1960):
401-403.
1. C = Kf W
fd
KX f
where: Cfd is the dimensionless fracture conductivity,
K f is the permeability of the proppant pack, W is the
width of the fracture, K is the permeability of the for-
mation and X f is the length of the fracture.
2. Hannah RR and Walker EJ: “Fracturing a High-Perme-
ability Oil Well at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska,” paper SPE
14372, presented at the 60th SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA,
September 22-25, 1985.

October 1992 19

A ulation was difficult. After acid fracturing,
Proppant
bridges
at tip
B forms a pack near the end of the fracture
Proppant
Fluid
leakoff
C
Proppant
fills
fracture
nTip-screenout treatments place a high
proppant concentration and create frac-
tures that are usually less than 100 ft long
and up to 1 in. wide.
A) The fracture is propagated to its
desired length just as the proppant in
the slurry begins to bridge off near the
tip of the fracture, preventing further
propagation.
B) Additional slurry is pumped into the
fracture increasing the net pressure
inside the fracture, causing it to widen.
C) Further dehydration of the slurry cre-
ates a pack of proppant that gradually
evolves from the tip toward the wellbore.
20
it was very unstable and conventional stim-
the acid-etched channels quickly collapsed
as pore pressure was reduced. And after a
conventional propped fracture, the proppant
became embedded in the soft rock, destroy-
ing fracture conductivity.
In 1986, Amoco opted to place a high
concentration of proppant in a wide fracture
using a technique it called “tip screenout.”
In normal fracturing, the tip should be the
final part of the fracture to be packed with
proppant. But in tip screenout, the proppant
early in the treatment. When additional
proppant-bearing slurry is pumped into the
fracture, its length cannot grow, so the width
increases (left ).3
At about the same time, in the UK sector
of the North Sea, BP Petroleum Develop-
ment Ltd. was applying tip screenout tech-
niques to stimulate gas wells in the Raven-
spurn South field. Permeability was 2 md
higher than gas wells that are normally frac-
tured, but BP found that conductivity of
long, conventional fractures limited the
reservoir’s high rate of production, giving
only a threefold increase in production.
Laboratory tests showed that up to 0.5
lbm/ft2 of proppant in the fracture can be
“lost” largely through embedment. To com-
bat this loss in conductivity, stimulation pro-
grams were designed to create wide frac-
tures, typically placing 3 to 4 lbm/ft 2 of
proppant. This “excess” of proppant
ensured that enough remained in the frac-
ture after embedment to deliver the
designed conductivity. Subsequent treat-
ments in Ravenspurn South, using high
proppant concentrations, posted increases
in production of up to sevenfold.4
Tip screenout also returned to Prudhoe
Bay. Since 1989, BP and ARCO Alaska Inc.
have employed tip-screenout treatments and
report considerable success.5
3. Smith MB, Miller WK and Haga J: “Tip Screenout
Fracturing: A Technique for Soft, Unstable Formations,”
SPE Production Engineering 2 (May 1987): 95-103.
4. Martins JP, Leung KH, Jackson MR Stewart, DR and
Carr AH: “Tip Screen-Out Fracturing Applied to the
Ravenspurn South Gas Field Development,” paper
SPE 19766, presented at the 64th SPE Annual Techni-
cal Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
USA, October 8-11, 1989.
5. Reimers DR and Clausen RA: “High-Permeability
Fracturing at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska,” paper SPE 22835,
presented at the 66th SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
Martins JP, Bartel PA, Kelly RT, Ibe OE and Collins PJ:
“Small Highly Conductive Hydraulic Fractures Near
Reservoir Fluid Contacts: Applications to Prudhoe
Bay,” paper SPE 24856, presented at the 67th Annual
SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington
DC, USA, October 4-7, 1992.
However, following some tip-screenout
treatments, proppant flowed out of the
fracture during posttreatment production.
This is caused by factors such as low effec-
tive stress in the proppant pack or drag
forces due to high-velocity flow in the con-
ductive pack. Proppant flowback leads to
reduced fracture conductivity or blockages
at the fracture-wellbore interface. If the
proppant is flowed to surface, damaging
erosion of the production equipment can
also occur.
Sand-control techniques have been
employed after fracturing to prevent prop-
pant flowback. The two main techniques
use resin-coated proppant or gravel pack-
ing. Proppant coated with a curable resin
consolidates once the proppant has been
placed in the fracture and resists drag during
production. Alternatively, the fracture treat-
ment can be followed by a gravel pack
using a conventional screen to retain the
proppant within the fracture (see “Sand
Control: Why and How?” page 41).
In Indonesia, more than 30 treatments
have been carried out that combine tip-
screenout fracturing with either resin con-
solidation or a gravel pack. These wells had
high skin factors but undamaged permeabil-
ities in excess of 100 md. Following treat-
ment, many now produce with low skin fac-
tors while adjacent conventionally-
completed wells have skins of 20 to 40 (see
”Average Data From Three Types of Treat-
ment,” next page, below left ).6
Tip-screenout fracturing and gravel pack-
ing treatments are also being used in combi-
nation in the Gulf of Mexico, USA. Over the
past 12 months, more than a dozen com-
bined treatments in formations with perme-
abilities as high as 1 darcy have realized
two- to threefold improvements in produc-
tion (next page, below right).
Experience around the world has enabled
development of a methodology for selecting
6. Peters FW, Cooper RE and Lee B: “Pressure-Pack
Stimulation Restores Damaged Wells’ Productivity,”
paper IPA 88064, Proceedings Indonesian Petroleum
Association 17th Annual Convention, Jakarta, Indone-
sia, October 1988.
Peters FW and Cooper RE: “A New Stimulation Tech-
nique for Acid-Sensitive Formations,” paper SPE
19490, presented at the SPE Asia-Pacific Conference,
Sydney, Australia, September 13-15, 1989.
7. Ayoub JA, Kirksey JM, Malone BP and Norman WD:
“Hydraulic Fracturing of Soft Formations in the Gulf
Coast,” paper SPE 23805, presented at the SPE Forma-
tion Damage Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA,
February 26-27, 1992.
Oilfield Review
wells for tip-screenout treatments. 7 There
are three classes of candidate:
•Reservoirs with significant wellbore dam-
age, perhaps caused by formation col-
lapse as the pore pressure reduces during
depletion. Past matrix treatments have
failed, and short, wide fractures are
designed to bypass the damage and con-
nect the undamaged part of the reservoir Proppant
with the wellbore.
•Reservoirs with fines migration. A short,
wide fracture can alleviate this by reduc-
ing pressure losses and velocities in the
reservoir sand near the wellbore.
•Multiple pay zones in laminated sand-
shale sequences. The thin sand laminae nLaminated pay zone with sand-shale sequences. The sand lam-
may not communicate efficiently with the inae may be connected to the wellbore by short, wide fractures.
wellbore until a fracture provides a con-
tinuous connection to the perforations thinner than 5 ft (1.5 m) and the formation After a candidate well has been identified,
(above, right ). strength. Specialized techniques like the next stage is to design the treatment, a
Candidate selection is a multidisciplinary microresistivity logging may then be used to process that relies on knowledge of the
task. Basic openhole logs detect sands and detect thinner layers of interbedded sand- rock’s mechanical properties and an esti-
their bounding shales, and indicate their rel- shale laminae. Logs also detect water-bear- mate of the stresses in the reservoir and
ative permeability and degree of inva- ing zones which must be considered during adjacent rock (see “Cracking Rock: Progress
sion—gaining an insight into the formation’s the design. Pressure transient analysis is in Fracture Treatment Design,” page 4 ).
natural permeability before damage, the used to identify wellbore damage and quan-
depth of invasion, the presence of zones tify the production potential of the well.
Simulation
10 3 Data
Average Data From Three Types of Treatment
Treatment Type
Production rate, B/D

Average data Type A Type B Type C

Total vertical depth, ft 7240 3560 4400
Zone thickness, ft 68 32 48 Fractured
Zone permeability, md 72 53 60
Pad volume, gal 1600 5100 3500
Slurry volume, gal 685 2000 1740
Nonfractured
In-situ proppant concentration, lbm/ft2 3.8 2.1 1.2 10 2
0 30 60 90
Propped fracture length, ft 28 115
Production time, days
Propped fracture conductivity, md-ft 5670
Pretreatment oil production, BPD 1040 156 nPredicted and real productivity increase in a Gulf of Mex-
ico, USA, well stimulated in early 1992 using tip-screenout
Posttreatment oil production, BPD 2140 1313 fracturing.
Pretreatment skin 18
Posttreatment skin 2.3
Treatment Type A Treatment Type B Treatment Type C
A series of six Indonesian Two Indonesian wells Series of treatments
wells fractured using the fractured with tip-screenout performed on two offshore
tip-screenout technique. treatments performed exploration wells to create
Although all the wells were through gravel-pack tools vertical communication
potential sand producers no and screens to place a between several thin, high-
special sand-control small, highly conductive permeability zones that
techniques were employed. fracture and a gravel pack were believed to be water-
in a single step. and acid-sensitive.

October 1992 21
 Mechanical properties can be derived
using cores, logs and direct in-situ measure-
ments. In many cases, however, retrieving
good cores and then accurately testing them
in the laboratory are difficult. Log-derived
mechanical properties rely on density and
sonic measurements. Both compressional
and shear sonic measurements work well in
consolidated, fast formations. But in soft,
slow formations, conventional sonic tools
cannot measure shear wave velocity. How-
ever, a recently introduced dipole sonic tool
can now make these shear wave velocity
measurements in any formation.8
In practice, there is rarely a comprehen-
sive collection of core and log data with
which to build a model predicting fracture
shape, used for treatment design. To plug
this knowledge gap, data are collected using
stress tests.
Stress tests consist of pumping a relatively
small volume of ungelled fluid without
22
proppant into the formation at sufficient
pressure to fracture the well. In normal,
low-permeability stress tests pumping is
then stopped and the pressure can be moni-
tored during flowback. However, in high-
permeability formations, the fluid normally
leaks off into the formation rather than flow-
ing back. Stress test are repeated several
times and the resulting pressure measure-
nFracturing high-permeability formations
in Indonesia. A specially modified twin
50-bbl mixer is capable of mixing and
pumping 18 lbm/gal slurries at more than
20 bbl/min. A centralized control station
allows one operator to control and monitor
the complete treatment—essential as pump-
ing times can be as short as 2 minutes.
ments are used to determine the minimum
in-situ stress, which equals the closure pres-
sure of the fracture.
Analysis of data from stress tests and
larger-volume calibration tests—which frac-
ture the formation usually using gelled fluid
without proppant—enables choice of the
most suitable fracture geometry model and
confirmation of the fluid leakoff coefficient.
Fracture geometry models of varying sophis-
tication are available. All of them use the
basic processes that occur during fractur-
ing—fluid flow in the fracture and leakoff,
proppant transportation and settling, and
rock response—to describe the relationship
Oilfield Review
between pressure and fracture shape and
produce criteria for fracture propagation.
The models assume that rock is an elastic
material, meaning that its deformation is
reversible. Dowell Schlumberger is cur-
rently examining whether this assumption
holds for soft formations, as it is an impor-
tant factor when looking at the fracture clo-
sure and the stress it exerts on the proppant
pack. If closure stress is less than antici-
pated, the proppant pack could become
unstable during production—unless the
treatment has included a gravel pack.
Calibration tests also provide a more
accurate way of measuring fluid-loss char-
acteristics of the fracturing fluid than can be
devised in a laboratory. Fluid loss depends
on the viscosity and wall-building capability
of the fracturing fluid, the viscosity and
compressibility of the reservoir fluid, and
the permeability and porosity of the forma-
tion. In a formation with high porosity and
permeability, fluid loss can be controlled by
increasing the viscosity of the fracturing
fluid or enhancing the fluid’s wall-building
capability on the fracture face by the addi-
tion of polymers and properly sized fluid-
Net pressure, psi
the proppant size, the greater the fracture
permeability. In gravel packs, the sand must
have intergranular spaces small enough to
keep formation sand at bay.
To date, most wells have been treated
using the same size proppant for the fracture
and the gravel pack. This simplifies proce-
dures but in most cases, proppant size tends
to be smaller—and therefore of lower con-
ductivity—than would ideally have been
employed if fracturing had been carried out
alone. ARCO has been performing treat-
ments with larger than normal sand sizes.9
After the job is completed, the first perfor-
mance yardstick is its mechanical suc-
cess—“Has everything gone according to
plan?” The effectiveness of the treatment
may then be assessed by comparing theoret-
ical net pressures (fracture propagation pres-
sure minus closure pressure) with pressures
measured during the treatment by down-
1000
500
hole memory gauges (below ). Other place-
ment evaluation techniques include use of
multiple-isotope tracers in the sand and
temperature logs to estimate the fracture
height and assess the fracture’s communica-
tion with the perforated interval along the
wellbore by tracing cooling anomalies
where the fluid has entered the formation.
However, the most important indicators of
success are the well’s production responses
both immediately after treatment and during
the rest of its productive life. To date, these
indicate that the traditional guidelines ruling
out fracturing for high-permeability forma-
tions have been successfully rewritten.—CF
8. “Taking Advantage of Shear Waves,” Oilfield Review
4, no. 3 (July 1992): 52-54.
9. Hainey BW and Troncoso JC: “Frac-Pack: An Innova-
tive Stimulation and Sand Control Technique,” paper
SPE 23777, presented at the SPE International Sympo-
sium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, USA, February 26-27, 1992.
Simulation
Data

loss control agents.

Once the choice of fracturing fluid is con-
firmed, the next step is to design a pumping
schedule capable of delivering the neces- 100
sary high proppant concentrations. The data
generated by stress and calibration tests are
fed into the chosen fracture geometry
model, which calculates the volume
required to initially propagate the fracture to 2 5 10 20 50 100
a predetermined length. To ensure tip Production time, days
screenout, proppant concentration in the
fracture fluid is gradually increased during nComparing simulated pressures with the real thing. The
the treatment from zero at the start, to more effectiveness of a treatment can be judged by comparing
theoretical net pressures with pressures measured during
than 16 lbm/gal at the end. the job using downhole gauges. This plot of a tip-screen-
Continuous mix and batch mix treatments out fracturing job shows excellent agreement between
using high concentrations of proppant have the simulated and actual pressures.
been executed fairly smoothly. In the larger
continuous mix jobs maintaining high con-
centrations of sand may require specialized
blending equipment (previous page).
Choice of proppant size depends on the
ultimate fracture conductivity needed and
whether the treatment is being carried out in
conjunction with a gravel pack. The larger

October 1992 23
 COMPLETION/STIMULATION
Trends in Matrix Acidizing
Curtis Crowe Jacques Masmonteil Ron Thomas
Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA Eric Touboul Montrouge, France
Saint-Etienne, France
Faced with poor production from a high-permeability reservoir, an operator’s first thought
is a matrix treatment. This commonly involves pumping acid into the near-wellbore region
to dissolve formation damage and create new pathways for production. This article
reviews the state of the art of matrix acidizing and discusses how technical break-
throughs are helping optimize matrix acid jobs.
The simple aim of matrix acidizing is to
improve production—reduce skin in reser-
voir engineer parlance—by dissolving for-
mation damage or creating new pathways
within several inches to a foot or two
around the borehole. This is done by pump-
ing treatment fluid at relatively low pressure
to avoid fracturing the formation. Compared
with high-pressure fracturing, matrix acidiz-
ing is a low-volume, low-budget operation.
Matrix acidizing is almost as old as oil-
well drilling itself. A Standard Oil patent for
acidizing limestone with hydrochloric acid
[HCl] dates from 1896, and the technique
was first used a year earlier by the Ohio Oil
Company. Reportedly, oil wells increased in
production three times, and gas wells four
times. Unfortunately there was a snag—the
acid severely corroded the well casing. The
technique declined in popularity and lay
dormant for about 30 years.
Then in 1931, Dr. John Grebe of the Dow
Chemical Company discovered that arsenic
inhibited the action of HCl on metal. The
following year, the Michigan-based Pure Oil
Company requested assistance from Dow
Chemical Company to pump 500 gallons of
24
HCl into a limestone producer using arsenic
as an inhibitor. The previously dead well
produced 16 barrels of oil per day, and
interest in acidizing was reborn. Dow
formed a subsidiary later called Dowell to
handle the new business (next page, top).
Three years later, Halliburton Oil Well
Cementing Co. also began providing a com-
mercial acidizing service.
Sandstone acidizing with hydrofluoric
acid [HF]—hydrochloric acid does not react
with silicate minerals—was patented by
Standard Oil company in 1933, but experi-
ments in Texas the same year by an inde-
pendent discoverer of the technique caused
plugging of a permeable formation. Com-
mercial use of HF had to wait until 1940,
when Dowell hit on the idea of combining
it with HCl to reduce the possibility of reac-
tion products precipitating out of solution
and plugging the formation. The mixture,
called mud acid, was first applied in the
Gulf Coast to remove mudcake damage.1
Oilfield Review

nMold of wormholes created by HCl in
limestone from a central conduit. Acid dis-
solves the rock as soon as it reaches the
grain surface. Matrix acidizing in carbon-
ates aims to create new pathways for pro-
duction rather than removing damage.
October 1992
nEarly acidizing
operations by Dow-
ell, a division of
Dow Chemical
established in 1932.
Chemistry
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to A.
Matrix acidizing of carbonates and silicates Ayorinde, Ashland Oil Nigeria Ltd, Lagos, Nigeria; Jim
are worlds apart.2 Carbonate rocks, com- Collins, Dowell Schlumberger, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
Harry McLeod Jr, Conoco, Houston, Texas, USA; Arthur
prising predominantly limestone and Milne, Dowell Schlumberger, Dubai; Carl Montgomery,
dolomite, rapidly dissolve in HCl and create ARCO Oil and Gas Co., Plano, Texas, USA; Giovanni
reaction products that are readily soluble in Paccaloni, AGIP S.p.A., Milan, Italy; and Ray Tibbles,
Dowell Schlumberger, Lagos, Nigeria.
water: In this article, CORBAN, FoamMAT, MatCADE,
MatTIME, PARAN and ProMAT are trademarks or service
CaCO3 + 2HCl → CaCl2 + CO2 + H2O marks of Dowell Schlumberger; NODAL (production
system analysis) and Formation MicroScanner are marks
Limestone Hydrochloric Calcium Carbon Water
of Schlumberger.
acid chloride dioxide
1. A classic paper on sandstone acidizing:
Smith CF and Hendrickson AR: “Hydrofluoric Acid
CaMg(CO3)2 + 4HCl → Stimulation of Sandstone Reservoirs,” Journal of
Dolomite Hydrochloric acid Petroleum Technology 17 (February 1965): 215-222.
2. For general reference:
CaCl2 + MgCl2 + 2CO2 + 2H2O .
Economides MJ and Nolte KG (eds): Reservoir Stimu-
Calcium Magnesium Carbon Water lation, 2nd ed. Houston, Texas, USA: Schlumberger
chloride chloride dioxide Educational Services, 1989.
Acidizing: SPE Reprint Series No. 32. Richardson,
Texas, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1991.
The rate of dissolution is limited mainly by Schechter RS: Oil Well Stimulation. Englewood Cliffs,
the speed with which acid can be delivered New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall, 1992.
to the rock surface. This results in rapid gen-
eration of irregularly shaped channels,
called wormholes (left ). The acid increases
production by creating bypasses around the
damage rather than directly removing it.
By comparison, the reaction between HF
and sandstones is much slower. Mud
acidizing seeks to unblock existing path-
ways for production by dissolving wellbore
damage and minerals filling the interstitial
25
pore space, rather than by creating new Before acid After acid
pathways. The HF reacts mainly with the
associated minerals of sandstones, rather
than the quartz (right ). The acid reactions
caused by the associated minerals—clays,
feldspars and micas—can create precipi-

Mud acid
tants that may cause plugging. Much of the
design of a sandstone acid job is aimed at
preventing this (see “HF Reactions in Sand-
stones,” below ).
The usual practice is to preflush the for-
mation with HCl to dissolve associated car-
bonate minerals. If these were left to react 2µ
with HF, they would produce calcium fluo-
ride [CaF2], which precipitates easily. Then
the HF-HCl mud acid is injected. Finally,
the formation is overflushed with weak HCl,
hydrocarbon or ammonium chloride
Fluoboric acid

[NH4Cl]. This pushes reaction products far

from the immediate wellbore zone so that if
precipitation occurs, production is not too
constricted when the well is brought back
on line.
Another plugging danger is from fine par-
ticles, native to the sandstone, dislodged by
2µ
the acid but not fully dissolved. To minimize
this eventuality, Shell in 1974 proposed
lower pumping rates—less likely to dislodge nScanning electron micrographs showing pore-filling clays before and after expo-
sure to both regular mud acid and fluoboric acid. In the fluoboric acid micrographs,
fines—and, more important, a chemical sys- some clays, lower left, are dissolved while others, kaolinite platelets in the middle of
tem that did not contain HF explicitly, the photographs, are partially fused preventing fines migration.
instead creating it through a chain of reac-
tions within the formation.3 In principle, this introduced a retarded acid system using flu- As HF is spent, dissolving clays and other
allows greater depth of penetration and oboric acid [HBF4]. This hydrolyzes in water minerals, it is constantly replenished
longer reaction times for maximum dissolu- to form HF:4 through hydrolysis from the remaining fluo-
tion of fines. Since then, several other sys- boric acid. The slow rate of this conversion
tems of in-situ generated—so-called HBF4 + H2O ↔ HBF3OH + HF . helps guarantee a retarded action and there-
retarded—mud acid systems have been pro- Fluoboric Water Hydroxyfluoboric Hydrofluoric fore deeper HF penetration. As a bonus, the
acid acid acid
posed. Recently, Dowell Schlumberger fluoboric acid itself reacts with the clays and

HF Reactions in Sandstones

The reaction of hydrofluoric acid [HF] on the pure Secondary cement: Quartz, feldspars, AlF52– and AlF63– (left). The concentration of each
quartz component of sandstone follows these two carbonate, quartz chert and mica. aluminum complex depends on the concentration
equations: Pore-lining clays, of free fluoride ions in the dissolving solution.
e.g. illite
Some of these products combine with free
SiO2 + 4HF ↔ SiF4 + 2H2O ,
Quartz Acid Silicon Water
sodium, potassium, and calcium ions to produce
tetrafluoride four compounds with varying degrees of solubility
and in the spending acid:
SiF4 + 2F– ↔ SiF62– , • sodium fluosilicate [Na2SiF6],
Silicon hexafluoride
• sodium fluoaluminate [Na3AlF6],
resulting mainly in the silicon hexafluoride anion, • potassium fluosilicate [K2SiF6],
SiF62–. • calcium fluosilicate [CaSiF6].
Pore-filling
Reaction with the feldspar, chert, mica and clay clays, e.g. kaolinite Matrix treatments are always designed to prevent
components of sandstones also results in this the formation of these compounds, to remove any
anion, but, in addition, produces a range of alu-
nConstituents of sandstone, all of which are soluble in risk of precipitation.
HCl-HF mud acid systems.
minum complexes: AlF2+, AlF2+, AlF3, AlF4–,

26 Oilfield Review
silt, forming borosilicates that appear to help
4000
bind the fines to large grains (previous page,
top ). Recent treatments with fluoboric acid
for Ashland Nigeria have confirmed the
power of this technique (right).5 3000
All in all, sandstone acidizing poses a

Production, BLPD
greater challenge than carbonate acidizing
Mud acid treatment
and certainly generates more than its fair
2000
share of controversy among both operators
and service companies.

Diversion
A challenge that must be faced in either
lithology is diversion. As acid is pumped, it
flows preferentially along the most perme-
able path into the formation. The acid opens
these paths up even more, and less perme-
able, damaged zones are almost guaranteed
not to receive adequate treatment. Some
technique to divert the treatment fluid
toward more damaged formation or dam-
aged perforations is therefore mandatory.
There is a variety of diversion techniques
(next page ). Treatment fluid can be directed
exclusively toward a low-permeability zone
using drillpipe or coiled-tubing conveyed
tools equipped with mechanical packers.
Alternatively, flow can be blocked at indi-
vidual perforations taking most of the treat-
ment fluid by injecting ball sealers that seat
on the perforations. In carbonates, bridging
agents such as benzoic acid particles or salt
can be used to create a filter cake inside
wormholes, encouraging the acid to go else-
where. In sandstones, microscopic agents
such as oil-soluble resins can create a filter
cake on the sand face. Chemical diverters
such as viscous gels and foams created with
1000
Fluoboric acid treatment
0
0 1 2
Time, yr
nProduction improvement in a Nigerian oil well after fluoboric
acid treatment. The well was initially acidized with mud acid and
produced 850 barrels of liquid per day (BLPD) with a 34% water
cut. Production then declined almost to zero, most likely due to
fines movement. After fluoboric acid treatment, production rose to
2500 BLPD, obviating the need for further acid treatments. Oil pro-
duction a year after the treatment was 220 BOPD. (From Ayorinde et
al, reference 5, courtesy of Ashland Nigeria.)
nitrogen are used to block high-permeability 3. Templeton CC, Richardson EA, Karnes GT and
pathways within the matrix (see “Diverting Lybarger JH: “Self-Generating Mud Acid,” Journal of
with Foam,” page 30). Petroleum Technology 27 (October 1975): 1199-1203.
4. Thomas RL and Crowe CW: “Matrix Treatment
The requirements on any diverting agent Employs New Acid System for Stimulation and Con-
are stringent. The agent must have limited trol of Fines Migration in Sandstone Formations,”
solubility in the carrying fluid, so it reaches paper SPE 7566, presented at the 53rd SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
the bottom of the hole intact; it must not USA, October 1-3, 1978.
react adversely with formation fluids; it must 5. Ayorinde A, Granger C and Thomas RL: “The Appli-
divert acid. Finally, it must clean up rapidly cation of Fluoboric Acid in Sandstone Matrix Acidiz-
ing: A Case Study,” presented at the 21st Annual Con-
so as not to impede later production. Ball vention of the Indonesian Petroleum Association,
sealers drop into the rathole as soon as October 6-8, 1992.

Silicon hexafluoride also combines with water
to produce colloidal silica [H4SiO4]:
SiF62– + H2O ↔ H4SiO4 + 4HF + 2F– .
This precipitate has proved controversial. Experts
agree that it cannot be avoided, but disagree
about whether it damages the formation. Some
believe it does, but work by Dowell Schlumberger
researcher Curtis Crowe suggests that colloidal
silica coats sandstone particle surfaces, actually
limiting the movement of fines that the treatment
would otherwise dislodge.1
Two other aluminum-based compounds—alumi-
num fluoride [AlF3] and aluminum hydroxide [Al(OH)3]
—may precipitate, following these reactions:
October 1992
Al3 + 3F– ↔ AlF3 ,
and
Al3 + 3OH– ↔ Al(OH)3 .
However, these two compounds can generally be
avoided through proper design of preflush and
mud acid formulation.
Often, acidizing can produce ferrous and ferric
ions, either from dissolving rust in the tubulars or
through direct action on iron minerals in the for-
mation. These ions can then produce more pre-
cipitates: ferric hydroxide [Fe(OH)3] and, in sour
wells, ferrous sulfide [FeS]. Various chelating
and reducing agents are employed to minimize
the impact of these two compounds.
Lastly, damage can arise through the precipita-
tion of calcium fluoride [CaF2], when HF reacts
with the carbonate mineralogy of sandstones:
CaCO3 + HF ↔ CaF2 + H2O + CO2 .
The main technique for avoiding calcium fluoride
precipitation is the HCl preflush, designed to
remove carbonate material before HF is injected.
Precipitates and their potential to damage the
formation remain a fact of life for the matrix
acidizer. But their impact can be greatly mini-
mized through use of an adequate preflush, the
correct mud acid formulation, and the avoidance
of any salts except ammonium chloride.
1. Crowe CW: “Precipitation of Hydrated Silica From Spent
Hydrofluoric Acid: How Much of a Problem Is It?” Jour-
nal of Petroleum Technology 38 (November 1986): 1234-
1240.
27
 Openhole completion ?
Chemical Yes No Gravel packed ?
Chemical
Yes No
Mechanical
Chemical
injection halts or, if they are of the buoyant
variety, they are caught in ball catchers at
the surface. Benzoic acid particles dissolve
in hydrocarbons. Oil-soluble resins are
expelled or dissolved during the ensuing
hydrocarbon production. Gels and foams
break down with time.
In practice, acid and diverting agents are
pumped in alternating stages: first acid, then
diverter, then acid, then diverter, and so on.
The number of stages depends on the length
of zone being treated. Typically, one acid-
diverter stage combination is planned for
every 15 to 25 ft [5 to 8 m] of formation.
28
Coiled tubing
available ?
Yes No Staged treatment
required ?
Yes No Flowback of
balls a problem,
or high shot density ?
Chemical Yes No
nChoosing a diversion method for matrix acidizing.
Diagnosis
If the principle of matrix acidizing appears
straightforward, the practice is a mine field
of complex decisions. Service companies
offer a vast selection of acid systems and
diverters, and few people would design the
same job the same way. In addition, matrix
acid jobs are low budget, typically between
$5000 and $10,000 an operation, so the
careful attention given to planning much
more expensive acid fracturing treatments is
often missing. Matrix acidizing is tradition-
ally carried out using local rules of thumb.
Worse, jobs are poorly evaluated.
Mechanical ball sealers
The question that should always be asked
before any other is “Why is the well under-
producing?” And then: ”Will production
increase with matrix acidizing?” Production
may be constricted for a reason other than
damage around the borehole. The only way
to find out is through pressure analysis from
the deep formation through to the wellhead,
using production history, well tests and
analysis of the well’s flowing pressures, such
as provided by NODAL analysis.6
The crude maxim that matrix acidizing
will benefit any well with positive skin has
Oilfield Review
 nAnalyzing causes of poor production in a gas well using NODAL
analysis of well pressures, from downhole to wellhead. In each
figure, well performance is presented by the intersection of a tub-
ing-intake curve—upward-sloping lines, one for each wellhead
p wellhead pressure—and an inflow-performance curve—downward-sloping
lines, one for each skin value.
The top NODAL analysis shows inflow performance assuming
2 shots per foot the well was perforated at two shots per foot, the bottom analysis
5 psi assuming 12 shots per foot. The tubing-intake curves are the same
3000 in both NODAL figures.
Bottomhole flowing pressure, psi ×103 4 At two shots per foot, decreasing skin with matrix acidizing
offers only marginal production improvement. At 12 shots per foot,
3
matrix acidizing will offer substantial production improvement.
1000
2 100

1 Causes of High Skin, Other Than Damage

50
(from McLeod, reference 7.)
0 30 0

12 shots per foot High liquid/gas ratio in a gas well > 100 bbl/MMscf
5 High gas/oil ratio in an oil well > 1000 scf/bbl
3000 Three-phase production: water, oil and gas
4
High-pressure drawdown > 1000 psi
3 High flow rate > 20 B/D/ft
1000 > 5 B/D/shot
2 100
skin Low perforation shot density < 4 shots per foot
1
Well perforated with zero-degree phasing
30 Well perforated with through-tubing gun, diameter < 2 in.
50 15 0
0 Reservoir pressure > bubblepoint pressure > wellbore pressure
0 5000 10000 15000
Gas production rate, Mscf/D

Gravel pack/
Tubing Formation
perforations
Scales nTypes of damage
and where they
Organic deposits can occur. Diag-
Bacteria nosing location
and type of dam-
Silts and clays age is the key to
Emulsion successful matrix
acidizing.
Water block
Wettability change

several exceptions. Too low a perforation inflow-performance curve—expected flow 6. Mach J, Proano E and Brown KE: “A Nodal Approach
density, multiphase flow, and turbulent gas into the well as a function of downhole well for Applying Systems Analysis to the Flowing and Arti-
ficial Lift Oil or Gas Well, paper SPE 8025, March 5,
flow are some factors that cause positive pressure—one can readily see if the well 1979, unsolicited.
skin in wells that otherwise may be undam- completion is restricting flow (top, left). 7. McLeod HO: “Significant Factors for Successful
aged. Stimulation expert Harry McLeod of Comparing a NODAL analysis with actual Matrix Acidizing,” paper NMT 890021, presented at
the Centennial Symposium Petroleum Technology
Conoco has established a checklist of warn- measured pressures also helps pinpoint the into the Second Century, New Mexico Institute of
ing indicators (see“Causes of High Skin, location of any damage. Damage does not Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico, USA,
Other Than Damage,” top, right ).7 occur only in the formation surrounding the October 16-19, 1989.
NODAL analysis, which predicts a well’s borehole. It can occur just as easily inside
steady-state production pressures, refines tubing, in a gravel-pack or in a gravel-pack
this checklist. For example, by comparing perforation tunnel (above).
tubing-intake curves—essentially the
expected pressure drop in the tubing as a
function of production rate—with the well’s

October 1992 29
 Fluid N2

Diverting with Foam

Damage
Thief
P P

Foam, a stable mixture of liquid and gas, has 1.25 nLaboratory setup for

Foam

been used as a diverter in sandstone acidizing
since 1969.1 By the usual criteria, it is almost
perfect. It is cheap to produce; it does a decent
job diverting; it does not interact adversely with
the formation and formation fluids; and it cleans
up rapidly. Foam is produced by injecting nitro-
gen into soapy water—typically, nitrogen occu-
pies 55 to 75% of foam volume. The soapy water
is a mixture of water and small amount of surfac-
tant, or foamer. Injected downhole, foam pene-
trates the pore space where the cumulatively vis-
cous effect of the bubbles blocks further entry of
the treating fluid.
Foam’s only drawback is that with time the
bubbles break and diversion ceases. This can be
seen in laboratory experiments, in which foam is
injected simultaneously through two long sand
packs, one with high permeability mimicking a
thief zone, the other with low permeability mim-
icking a damaged zone (above, right). The cores
are preflushed and then injected with foam. Then,
acid is injected. At first, diversion works fine, with
the low-permeability sand pack taking an
increasingly greater proportion of the acid. But
after about one hour, the foam has broken and the
thief zone starts monopolizing the treatment fluid.
Researchers at the Dowell Schlumberger engi-
neering center at Saint-Etienne, France discov-
ered that this breakdown can be postponed by
saturating the formation with a preflush of surfac-
Acid
Preflush
Flow rate, bbl/min/20-ft zone
investigating foam diver-
1 Damaged zone sion, using two sand
packs, one with high
permeability mimicking
0.75
a thief zone, the other
with low permeability
0.5 mimicking a damaged
zone. Conventional foam
diversion works fine for
0.25
a while—60 minutes in
Thief zone
this example—but then
0 breaks down.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, min
tant before injecting the foam and also injecting cent period, foam in low-permeability sand pre-
surfactant with every subsequent stage in the maturely breaks down—scientists are not sure
acid process. The surfactant adheres to the rock why. The combination of surfactant injection and
surface and minimizes adsorption of surfactant 10-minute shut-in comprises the new FoamMAT
contained in foam, preserving the foam. diversion service that has seen successful appli-
As before, the foam progressively diverts treat- cation in the Gulf of Mexico and Africa (see “Field
ment fluid to the damaged zone, but now the Case Studies,” below).2
diversion holds for at least 100 minutes (next The FoamMAT technique also provides excel-
page, top). If necessary, damaged formation can lent blockage of water zones in high water-cut
first be cleaned with mutual solvent to remove oil wells. In a laboratory simulation, two sand packs
in the near-wellbore region—oil destroys were constructed with the same permeability but
foam—and to ensure the rock surface is water- saturated with different fluids, water and oil (next
wet and receptive to the surfactant. page, bottom). The preflush injection of surfactant
Yet further improvement to foam diversion can can be seen to favor, as expected, the water zone.
be achieved by halting injection for about 10 min- Then foam was injected into both packs. When
utes after foam injection. The diversion of treat- acid was injected, most went into the oil zone
ment fluid to the damaged sand pack now takes confirming an almost perfect diversion.
effect almost immediately, rather than almost 50
minutes. It seems that given a 10-minute quies-

Field Case Studies

Well type Depth Interval Temperature Production
ft ft °F before after
High water-cut 9600 51 190 433 BOPD 855 BOPD
oil well 41% water cut 38% water cut
Gas lift FTP: 2100 psi @ 2 months
Gas well 6600 16 175 2 MMscf/D 5.6 MMscf/D
3 BOPD 17 BOPD
FTP: 1000 psi FTP: 2100 psi @ 2 months
Oil well 11200 40 240 0 860 BOPD
FTP: 220 psi @ 1 week
Low-perm 11,900 200 245 1.8 MMscf/D 4.0 MMscf/D
gas well FTP: 250 psi FTP: 400 psi @ 1 month

30 Oilfield Review
 Damage
Scales, organic deposits and bacteria are
three types of damage that can cause havoc
anywhere, from the tubing to the gravel
pack, to the formation pore space. Scales
are mineral deposits that in the lower pres-
sure and temperature of a producing well
precipitate out of the formation water, form-
ing a crust on formation rock or tubing.
No shut-in
1.25 nImprovement in stay- With age, they become harder to remove.
Foam

Acid
Preflush

The treatment fluid depends on the mineral

Flow rate, bbl/min/20-ft zone

ing power of foam diver-

1 sion, using a preflush of
Damaged zone surfactant and further
surfactant injection with
0.75
the acid (top). Further
improvement in foam
0.5 diversion is obtained by
having a shut-in period
following foam injection
0.25
(bottom). During this
Thief zone quiescent period, foam
0 in low-permeability sands
Shut-in breaks down and diver-
1.25 sion becomes immediate.
Foam
type, which may be a carbonate deposit,
sulfate, chloride, an iron-based mineral, sili-
cate or hydroxide. The key is knowing
which type of scale is blocking flow.
Reduced pressure and temperature also
cause heavy organic molecules to precipi-
tate out of oil and block production. The
main culprits are asphaltenes and paraffinic
waxes. Both are dissolved by aromatic sol-
vents. Far more troublesome are sludges
that sometimes occur when inorganic acid
reacts with certain heavy crudes. There is

Shut-in

Acid
Preflush

no known way of removing this type of

Flow rate, bbl/min/20-ft zone

Damaged zone
1 damage, so care must be taken to avoid it
through use of antisludging agents.
Bacteria are most commonly a problem in
0.75
injection wells, and they can exist in an
amazing variety of conditions, with and
0.5 without oxygen, typically doubling their
population every 20 minutes or so.8 The
0.25 result is a combination of slimes and
Thief zone assorted amorphous mess that blocks pro-
0 duction. An additional reason for cleansing
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, min
the well of these organisms is to kill the so-
called sulfate-reducing bacteria that live off
sulfate ions in water either in the well or
1.25
Preflush Foam Acid nEfficacy of FoamMAT formation. Sulfate-reducing bacteria pro-
duce hydrogen sulfide that readily corrodes
Flow rate, bbl/min/20 ft zone

diversion in high water-

1 cut wells, proved in a tubulars. Bacterial damage can be cleaned
laboratory experiment with sodium hypochlorite and it is as impor-
Water zone
using two sand packs tant to clean surface equipment, whence
0.75
of the same permeabil- injection water originates, as it is to clean
ity, but initially saturated the well and formation.
0.5 with oil and water, Two further types of damage can con-
respectively.
tribute to blocked flow in gravel pack and
0.25 formation—silts and clays, and emulsions.
Oil zone Silts and clays, the target of most mud acid
0 jobs and 90% of all matrix treatments, can
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, min
originate from the mud during drilling and
perforating or from the formation when dis-
lodged during production, in which case
1. Smith CL, Anderson JL and Roberts PG: “New Diverting 2. Zerhboub M, Touboul E, Ben-Naceur K and Thomas RL: they are termed fines. When a mud acid
Techniques for Acidizing and Fracturing,” paper SPE “Matrix Acidizing: A Novel Approach to Foam Diversion,” system is designed, it is useful to know the
2751, presented at the 40th SPE Annual California paper SPE 22854, presented at the 66th SPE Annual
silt and clay composition, whatever its ori-
Regional Meeting, San Francisco, California, USA, Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA,
November 6-7, 1969. October 6-9, 1991. gin, since a wrongly composed acid can
A recent case-study paper: result in precipitates that block flow even
Kennedy DK, Kitziger FW and Hall BE: “Case Study of the
Effectiveness of Nitrogen Foam and Water-Zone Diverting
Agents in Multistage Matrix Acid Treatments,” SPE Pro- 8. “Bacteria in the Oil Field: Bad News, Good News,”
duction Engineering 7, no. 2 (May 1992): 203-211. The Technical Review 37, no. 1 (January 1989): 48-53.

October 1992 31
more. Emulsions can develop when water
and oil mix, for example when water-base
mud invades oil-bearing formation. Emul-
sions are highly viscous and are usually
removed using mutual solvents.
The interplay of oil and water in porous
rock provides two remaining types of dam-
age occurring only in the formation—wetta-
bility change and water block. In their
native state, most rocks are water-wet,
which is good news for oil production. The
water clings to the mineral surfaces leaving
the pore space available for hydrocarbon
production. Oil-base mud can reverse the
situation, rendering the rock surface oil-wet,
pushing the water phase into the pores and
impeding production. A solution is to inject
mutual solvent to remove the oil-wetting
phase and then water-wetting surfactants to
reestablish the water-wet conditions.
Finally, water block occurs when water-
base fluid flushes a hydrocarbon zone so
completely that the relative permeability to
oil is reduced to zero—this can occur with-
out a wettability change. The solution is
again mutual solvents and surfactants, this
time to reduce interfacial tension between
the fluids, and to give the oil some degree
of relative permeability and a chance to
move out.
Design
Assessing the nature of the damage is diffi-
cult because direct evidence is frequently
lacking. The engineer must use all available
information: the well history, laboratory test
data, and experience gained in previous
operations in the reservoir. The initial goal,
of course, is selecting the treatment fluid.
Later, the exact pumping schedule—vol-
umes, rates, number of diverter stages—
must be worked out.
Since carbonate acidizing with HCl cir-
cumvents damage, the main challenge of
fluid selection lies almost entirely with sand-
stone acidizing where damage must be
removed. Laboratory testing on cores and
the oil can positively ensure that a given
HF-HCl mud acid system will perform as
desired—it is particularly recommended
when working in a new field. These tests
first examine the mineralogy of the rock to
help pick the treating fluid. Then, compati-
bility tests, conducted between treating fluid
and the oil, make sure that mixing them
produces no emulsion or sludge. Finally, an
acid response curve is obtained by injecting
the treating fluid into a cleaned core plug,
under reservoir conditions of temperature
and pressure, and monitoring the resulting
change in permeability. The acid response
curve indicates how treating fluid affects the
rock matrix—the design engineer strives for
a healthy permeability increase.
Most treatment fluid selection for sand-
stone acidizing builds on recommendations
established by McLeod in the early 1980s.9
The choice is between different strengths of
the HCl-HF combination and depends on
formation permeability, and clay and silt
content ( below ). For example, higher
strengths are used for high-permeability rock
with low silt and clay content—high strength
acid in low-permeability rock can create
precipitation and fines problems. Strengths
are reduced as temperature increases
because the rate of reaction then increases.
McLeod’s criteria have since been
expanded by Dowell Schlumberger. 10
Recently, this updated set of rules has been
merged with about 100 additional criteria
on the risks associated with pumping com-
plex mixtures of fluids into the matrix, and
incorporated into a computerized expert
system to help stimulation engineers pick
the best treatment system. 11 The system
actually presents several choices of treating
fluid and ranks them according to efficiency.
When the engineer chooses, the generically
defined fluids are mapped on to the catalog
of products offered by the service company.

Acid Guidelines for Sandstones

1983
Condition Main Acid Preflush nEvolution of acid
system guidelines
HCl solubility (> 20%) Use HCl only for sandstones to
High permeability (>100 md) maximize damage
removal and mini-
High quartz (80%), low clay (< 5%) 12% HCl, 3% HF 15% HCl mize precipitates.
The first guidelines
High feldspar (> 20%) 13.5% HCl, 1.5% HF 15% HCl
in 1983 consisted of
High clay (> 10%) 6.5% HCl, 1% HF Sequestered 5% HCl a few rules. These
were expanded to
High iron chlorite clay 3% HCl, 0.5% HF Sequestered 5% HCl more complex
Low permeability (< 10 md) tables in 1990.
Now, knowledge-
Low clay (< 5%) 6% HCl, 1.5% HF 7.5% HCl or 10% acetic acid based systems
High chlorite 3% HCl, 0.5% HF 5% acetic acid incorporate hun-
dreds of rules on
1990 fluid choice.
Mineralogy Permeability
> 100 md 20 to 100 md < 20 md
12% HCl, 3% HF 10% HCl, 2% HF 6% HCl, 1.5% HF
< 200°F 7.5% HCl, 3% HF 6% HCl,1% HF 4% HCl, 0.5% HF
High quartz (> 80%), low clay (< 10%) 10% HCl, 1.5% HF 8% HCl,1% HF 6% HCl, 0.5% HF
High clay (> 10%), low silt (< 10%) 12% HCl, 1.5% HF 10% HCl,1% HF 8% HCl, 0.5% HF
High clay (> 10%), high silt (> 10%)
Low clay (< 10%), high silt (> 10%) 10% HCl, 2% HF 6% HCl, 1.5% HF 6% HCl, 1% HF
> 200°F 6% HCl, 1% HF 4% HCl, 0.5% HF 4% HCl, 0.5% HF
8% HCl, 1% HF 6% HCl, 0.5% HF 6% HCl, 0.5% HF
10% HCl, 1% HF 8% HCl, 0.5% HF 8% HCl, 0.5% HF

32 Oilfield Review
 Commentary: Harry McLeod
Formation damage mineralogy
Diagnostics
Well completion data Harry McLeod,
Damage type senior engineering pro-
Damage removal
fessional in the drilling
mechanism
Fluid selection division, production
advisor technology department,
3% HF,12% HCl Conoco Inc. Houston,
Fluid description
Fluid sequence Texas, USA.

Risk analysis
Pumping schedule
advisor Matrix acidizing is generally suc-
Volumes cessful in a damaged formation so
Number of diverter stages Preflush 15% HCl, Surf, Cor. Inh. long as the well is properly pre-
Injection rates Main flush 3% HF, 12% HCl, Surf.
Overflush 5% HCl, Surf, Cor. Inh.
pared and only clean fluids enter
Simulator the perforations during treatment.

Flow profile evolution In carbonate formations, scale is the most com-

Skin evolution Product mapping mon damage. In sandstone formations, the most
Rate/pressure plots
common damage occurs during or just after perfo-
Production rating and during subsequent workovers as a result
prediction
Preflush 15% HCl, F78, A260 of losing contaminated fluids to the formation.
Production rates Main flush RMA, F78, A260 When wells are not properly evaluated with a
Payout time Overflush 5% HCl, F78, A260
combination of NODAL analysis, and either core or
drillstem test data, treatments are often unsuc-
nFive essential steps in designing a matrix acidizing job, as incorporated in the Dowell cessful because restrictions other than formation
Schlumberger ProMAT software package. Detail (right) shows breakdown of fluid selec- damage are present, as discussed in this article.
tion—with initial choice of main treating fluid, design of all fluid stages and mapping of
generic fluids to service company products. Only in recent years has proper attention been
given to well preparation and on-site supervision.
Pumping Schedule for a Two-Stage Job Improvements in Conoco matrix treatment oper-
Step Fluid Volume Flow rate Time ations have been obtained by either pickling the
bbl bbl/min min production tubing or avoiding acid contact with the
1 Preflush HCI 15% 17.3 2.2 7.9 production string through the use of coiled tubing.
Stage 1 2 Main fluid RMA 13/31 68.2 2.2 31.0 The best results are obtained with effective divert-
3 Overflush 33.0 2.4 ing procedures that ensure acid coverage and
HCI 4% 13.8
injection into every damaged perforation. In 1985,
4 Overflush HCI 4% 20.7 4.8 4.3
Conoco achieved a 95% success ratio in a 37-well
5 Diverter slug HCI 4% 3.1 4.8 0.6 treatment program using a complete quality con-
6 Preflush J237A2 17.3 4.8 3.6 trol program and effective diversion.1
Stage 2 7 Main fluid HCI 15% 12.6 4.8 2.6 More effective diverter design and improved
8 Main fluid RMA 13/31 55.6 1.1 50.5 models of dissolution and precipitation based on
9 Overflush 53.7 1.1 rock characterization are still needed, especially
RMA 13/31 48.8
in sandstones with less than 50-md permeability
10 Tubing displ. NH4Cl brine 3% 33.0 1.2 27.5
and for downhole temperatures above 200°F
1. Regular Mud Acid, 13% HCl, 3% HF. 2. Four-micron particulate oil-soluble resin, usable up to 200°F. [93°C].
nA pumping schedule computed with ProMAT software, listing for each stage the fluid 1. Brannon DH, Netters CK and Grimmer PJ: “Matrix Acidizing Design
volume, pump rate and pump time. This schedule can be input to a simulator to predict and Quality-Control Techniques Prove Successful in Main Pass
detailed outcome of the matrix acid job, such as skin improvement. Area Sandstone,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 39 (August
1987): 931-942.
This fluid selection advisor forms one NODAL analysis for diagnosing why a well
module of the ProMAT productive matrix is underproducing, then follows with the 9. McLeod HO: “Matrix Acidizing,” Journal of Petro-
leum Technology 36 (December 1984): 2055-2069.
treatment system that Dowell Schlumberger expert system for fluid selection. 10. Perthuis H and Thomas R: Fluid Selection Guide for
recently introduced to improve the some- The third component develops a prelimi- Matrix Treatments, 3rd ed. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA:
times unacceptable results of matrix acidiz- nary pumping schedule to ensure a skin Dowell Schlumberger, 1991.
ing (top). The ProMAT system provides com- value of zero—how many stages of treating 11. Chavanne C and Perthuis H: “A Fluid Selection
Expert System for Matrix Treatments,” presented at
puter assistance for every step of well fluid, how many diverting stages, how the Conference on Artificial Intelligence in
diagnosis, and the design, execution and much to pump in each stage, etc. (above). Petroleum Exploration and Production, Houston,
Texas, USA, July 22-24,1992.
evaluation of matrix acidizing.12 The pack- The fourth component is a detailed simula-
12. The ProMAT system calls on two software packages:
age begins with the previously described tion of the acidization process. Given a the MatCADE software for design and postjob eval-
pumping schedule, it provides detailed uation, and the MatTIME package for job execution
October 1992 and real-time evaluation.
forecasts of injection flow profiles, of the
improvement in skin per zone as the job
proceeds and of the overall rate/pressure
behavior to be expected during the job.
This information either confirms the previ-
ously estimated pumping schedule or sug-
gests minor changes to guarantee optimum
job performance. The fifth and final module
uses the results of the simulation to predict
well performance after the operation and
therefore the likely payback, the acid test
for the operator.
At the heart of both the pumping schedule
advisor and simulator are models of how an
acidizing job progresses. In most of the
details, the advisor’s model is simpler than
the simulator’s, and even the simulator
model is simple compared with reality.
Acidizing physics and chemistry are highly
complex and provide active research for oil
companies, service companies and universi-
ties alike.13 For job design, simple models
have the advantage of requiring few input
parameters but the disadvantage of cutting
too many corners. Complex models may
Well
Fluids intermixing while progressing
Injection Diverter deposition at perforations
point
nSimulating a matrix
acid job, stage by
stage, using a radially
symmetric model of the
formation and analysis
of the main controlling Acid and diverter transportation
factors in matrix
acidizing: acid and
diverter flow, formation
dissolution, diverter
deposition, and poros-
ity and permeability
change. This sequence
of computations is
made simultaneously
for all blocks and in
small time steps.
34
mimic reality better, but they introduce more
parameters, some of which may be unmea-
surable in the field or even in the laboratory.
Whatever their level of sophistication,
acidizing models must deal with four pro-
cesses simultaneously:
• tracking of fluid stages as they are
pumped down the tubing, taking into
account differing hydrostatic and friction
losses
• movement of fluids through the porous
formation
• dissolution of damage and/or matrix by
acid
• accumulation and effect of diverters.
All four phenomena are interdependent.
Diverter placement depends on the injec-
tion regime; the injection regime depends
on formation permeability; formation per-
meability depends on acid dissolution; acid
dissolution depends on acid availability;
acid availability depends on diverter place-
ment; and so on.
The computation proceeds fluid stage by
fluid stage (below ). The time taken for each
Gravity in well
and layers
For each block
and each time step...
Pressure and flow rate using
Darcy's law
Mineral dissolution
Diverter deposition
Porosity/permeability change
Next time step
stage is subdivided into a series of small
time steps and this chain reaction is evalu-
ated for each step. The results after one time
step serve as the input to the next. In addi-
tion, for the more sophisticated simulation,
the formation is split into a mosaic of radi-
ally symmetric blocks. At each time step,
the evaluation must be performed for all
blocks simultaneously. The simulator pro-
vides a detailed prediction of how the acid
job will progress and the expected improve-
ment in skin and productivity (next page,
above ). This helps decide the bottom line,
which is time to payback.
Execution and Evaluation
Sophisticated planning goes only part way
to ensuring the success of a matrix acidizing
operation. Just as important is job execution
and monitoring. In a study of 650 matrix
acidizing jobs conducted worldwide for
AGIP, stimulation expert Giovanni
Paccaloni estimated that 12% were outright
failures, and that 73% of these failures were
due to poor field practice.14 Just 27% of the
failures were caused by incorrect choice of
fluids and additives. Success and failure
were variously defined depending on the
well. Matrix acidizing a previously dry
exploration well was judged a success if the
operation established enough production to
permit a well test and possible evaluation of
the reservoir. The success of a production
well was more closely aligned with achiev-
ing a specific skin improvement. Having
identified the likely reason for failure, AGIP
13. University of Texas:
Walsh MP, Lake LW and Schechter RS: “A Descrip-
tion of Chemical Precipitation Mechanisms and
Their Role in Formation Damage During Stimulation
by Hydrofluoric Acid,” Journal of Petroleum Tech-
nology 34 (September 1982): 2097-2112.
Taha R, Hill AD and Sepehrnoori K: “Simulation of
Sandstone-Matrix Acidizing in Heterogeneous
Reservoirs,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 38
(July 1986): 753-767.
Dowell Schlumberger:
Perthuis H, Touboul E and Piot B: “Acid Reactions
and Damage Removal in Sandstones: A Model for
Selecting the Acid Formulation,” paper SPE 18469,
presented at the SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, USA, February
8-10, 1989.
Shell:
Davies DR, Faber R, Nitters G and Ruessink BH: “A
Novel Procedure to Increase Well Response to
Matrix Acidising Treatments,” paper SPE 23621, pre-
sented at the Second SPE Latin American Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, March
8-11, 1992.
14. Paccaloni G and Tambini M: “Advances in Matrix
Stimulation Technology,” paper SPE 20623, pre-
sented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
September 23-26, 1990.
Oilfield Review
 One-stage Two-stage
18 nSimulation results

HCl 15%

RMA 12/3

RMA 12/3

Diverter slug J237A

HCl 4%

HCl 15%

HCl 4%

HCl 15%

RMA 12/3

HCl 4%
Diverter slug J237A

NH4Cl brine 3%
showing the differ-
14 ence between one-
and two-stage
matrix acid jobs on
Total skin

10 a damaged oil well

known to produce
from two layers.
6
The one-stage job
(left) fails to remove
2 damage from layer
2, which is left with
a skin of 10. The
two-stage job

NH4Cl brine 3%
Diverter slug J237A
HCl 15%

RMA 12/3

HCl 4%

HCl 15%

RMA 12/3

HCl 4%

HCl 15%

RMA 12/3

HCl 4%
Diverter slug J237A
30
diverts the second
acid stage toward
this layer, bringing
the skin of the
Skin per layer

20
entire well to zero.
Assuming a
Layer 2 $15/barrel price for
10 oil, the payback
2 after 30 days is
Layer 1 1 $330,000 for the
0
one-stage job and
$520,000 for the
slightly more

NH4Cl brine 3%
Diverter slug J237A
HCl 15%

RMA 12/3

HCl 4%

RMA 12/3

Diverter slug J237A

HCl 15%

HCl 4%

HCl 15%

RMA 12/3

HCl 4%
4
expensive two-
stage job. The prop-
Flow rate, bbl/min

erly designed, more

complex operation
1
appears a reason-
2 able option.

1
2
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 60 120 180 240 300
Volume, bbl Volume, bbl

Commentary: Giovanni Paccaloni

After several decades of field practice, countless lab studies and theoretical investigations,
matrix acidizing technology is today one of the most powerful tools available to the oil indus-
try for optimizing production. There is still much room for improvement, however. Reasons are:
• the relatively low operational cost compared to
the economic benefits
• the great complexity of the physicochemistry
phenomena involved, as yet only partially mod-
eled
• the low attention paid so far to the evaluation
and to the understanding of actual field acid
response, the evolution of skin with treatment
fluid injected
• the lack of exhaustive studies matching lab and
field results
Giovanni Paccaloni,
• the negligible amount of lab work with radial
head of production
cores, which may provide skin evolution data
optimization technologies
that linear cores cannot
department at
• the low attention paid so far to validating acidiz-
AGIP headquarters in
ing techniques using pressure build-up tests and
Milan, Italy
flowmeter surveys
October 1992
• the small degree of integration between different
disciplines— lab scientist, field engineer, pro-
duction/petroleum engineer, and academia
• the prevailing attitude to preserve consolidated
“rules” based more often on the microscale
simulation of reality than on the study of reality,
i.e., actual well response.
All of the above are receiving intense attention at
AGIP. R&D efforts are directed to improving the
success ratio and lowering costs, with the underly-
ing idea that any new technique must be validated
with field results. Much attention is given to the
interdisciplinary approach, to improved training,
and to finalized R&D projects. Three expert sys-
tems dealing with matrix acidizing design, forma-
tion damage diagnosis and well problem analysis
have been recently released to our operating dis-
tricts. New matrix acidizing technologies, devel-
oped in-house, are currently under field test. The
35
laboratory study of skin evolution simulating actual
field conditions is one of our major concerns.
 The key issue in matrix acidizing horizontal wells
Auxiliary Fluid density Flow rate Treating pressure Annular pressure is acid placement, since both damaged and thief
measurements zones can be hundreds of feet long.1 The two
techniques used are bullheading and coiled-tub-
ing placement.
Acidizing horizontal wells by bullheading fol-
lows conventional practice, with alternating
Wellsite
stages of acid and diverter. Coiled tubing, on the
Real-time skin value other hand, allows accurate placement of diverter
Mud acid treatment Slug diversion into thief zones before acid is pumped—thief zones
can be identified from production logs, Formation
HCl

Mud acid

Overflush

Acid

Diverter

Acid

Diverter

Acid
MicroScanner images or mud logs. After the thief
zones have been treated by positioning the coiled
Skin

tubing opposite them and injecting diverter, the

coiled tubing is run to total depth and gradually
withdrawn as acid is pumped. Simultaneous with-
drawal and injection provides the most even cov-
Time erage. If inadequate data are available to identify
nMonitoring skin in real time using Dowell Schlumberger’s MatTIME wellsite measure- thief zones, acid and diverter stages can be alter-
ment and analysis system. The general principle (top) is to continue pumping acid for nated as the coiled tubing is withdrawn.
any given stage while skin continues decreasing and change to the next fluid stage only
after skin has levelled off for a while. When diversion is used, skin increases (bottom). Simulations illustrate the effectiveness of the
Final effective skin can be estimated by subtracting the net increases due to diversion coiled-tubing technique over bullheading. The
from the value indicated at the end of the job.
horizontal well used for the simulations has a
followed up almost all the failures with a What helped AGIP identify and correct 1000-ft producing section drilled in sandstone
second acid job. This not only resulted in the failures, though, was reliable real-time with severe bentonite drilling-mud damage along
improved production, but also confirmed monitoring of each job, particularly the all of it except for a 200-ft long thief zone.
the failure diagnosis in each case. tracking of skin. If skin improves with time,
Bullheading 25 gallons of half-strength mud
Reasons for poor field operation centered the job is presumably going roughly as
on the technique of bullheading, in which planned and is worth continuing. If skin acid removes damage in the first 400 ft of the
acid is pumped into the well, pushing dirt stops improving or gets worse, then it may hole, but fails to make much impact on the sec-
from the tubing and whatever fluids are be time to halt operations. The problem ini- tion beyond the thief zone (next page,top). The
below the packer, often mud, directly into tially was the poor quality of field measure- thief zone initially accepts about one-half of the
the formation. Bullheading can be avoided ments, traditionally simple pressure charts.
treatment fluid, and with time the upper section
by using coiled tubing to place acid at the Then in 1983, digital field recording of well-
exact depth required, bypassing dirt and flu- head pressures was introduced. Today, fluid becomes a second thief zone. The section beyond
ids already in the well. Paccaloni recom- density, injection flow rates, wellhead and the thief zone takes only 20% of the treatment
mends use of coiled tubing whenever possi- annulus pressures are recorded and ana- fluid, resulting in poor damage removal.
ble—its benefit for acidizing horizontal lyzed at the wellsite (above ).
wells has been well documented (see “Hori- Three methods have been proposed to 1. For general reading:
zontal Wells: Bullheading Versus Coiled monitor skin. In 1969, McLeod and Coulter Frick TP and Economides MJ: “Horizontal Well Damage
Tubing,” next page ). suggested analyzing the transients created Characterization and Removal,” paper SPE 21795, pre-
sented at the Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach,
before and after treatment fluid injection.15
California, USA, March 20-22,1991.
15. McLeod HO and Coulter AW: “The Stimulation
The analysis was performed after job execu-
Economides MJ and Frick TP: “Optimization of Horizontal
Treatment Pressure Record—an Overlooked Forma- tion and therefore not intended to be a real- Well Matrix Stimulation Treatments,” paper SPE 22334,
tion Evaluation Tool,” Journal of Petroleum Technol- time technique. In 1979, Paccaloni formu- presented at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum
ogy 21 (August 1969): 951-960.
lated a method that assumes steady-state Engineering, Beijing, China, March 24-27, 1992.
16. Paccaloni G: “New Method Proves Value of Stimula-
tion Planning,” Oil & Gas Journal 77 (November 19, flow and ignores the transients, but that pro-
1979): 155-160. vides a continuous estimate of skin in real
time.16 Paccaloni used this method to suc-
cessfully analyze causes of failure in his sur-
vey of AGIP matrix jobs.
36 (continued on page 39) Oilfield Review
Horizontal Wells: Bullheading Versus Coiled Tubing

14

Upper section Thief zone Lower section 12

400 ft 200 ft 400 ft
10

Skin
6
14
4
12 Lower section
2
10
0
8
Skin

-2
6
Upper section
4
1.2
2
Thief zone

Rate, bbl/min
0 1.0

-2
0.8

1.2 Upper section

0.6
Rate, bbl/min

1.0
0.4

0.8 1 2 3 4 5

Thief zone Time, hrs

0.6 nBullheading with diverter in a series of nine stages. Once the first
diverter stage is pumped, flow into the thief zone is arrested and practi-
0.4 Lower section cally equal flows go into the upper and lower sections. Skin decreases
everywhere.
1 2 3 4 5
Time, hrs
nSimulation of bullheading acid into a horizontal well with a thief zone.
Lower section receives little acid and shows poor skin improvement.

14 Bullheading acid and diverter in a series of

12 nine alternating stages provides a dramatic
Upper section
10 improvement (above). The flow rate into the thief
zone decreases dramatically once the first
8
diverter stage is pumped, and practically equal
Skin

6
flows then go into the lower and upper zones
Lower section
4 resulting in uniform skin improvement.
2 By using coiled tubing to inject diverter into the
0 thief zone before pumping acid, virtually uniform

-2
penetration can be achieved (left). In the simula-
1 2 3 4 5
tion, both upper and lower damaged zones are
Time, hrs
nearly restored to their natural permeability.
nUse of coiled tubing to pump diverter into thief zone and then acidiz- Such effective diversion occurs less readily in
ing the well by gradually withdrawing the tubing ensure skin reduction
everywhere in the horizontal section. carbonates acidized with HCl, where the rapid
reaction tends to counter the effectiveness of
most diversion techniques. However, field exam-

October 1992 37
ples show the benefits of using coiled tubing, culated with foamed gel, resulting in a 90%

rather than simple bullheading of the acid.
In a 1500-ft long horizontal injector in a Middle
East limestone reservoir, most of the 4000 B/D
injected was entering the first 450 ft of the hori-
zontal trajectory and none was entering beyond
900 ft—see the production log made before acid
treatment (right). A treatment was then performed
by running coiled tubing to the end of the well and
pumping 15% HCl at the rate of 10 gallons per
foot as the tubing was withdrawn. When the
coiled tubing had been withdrawn to the begin-
ning of the horizontal section, 15 gallons-per-foot
additional HCl were bullheaded into the formation.
Injection was subsequently 5500 B/D. The post-
treatment production log shows most of the
increase is entering the first 450 ft of well. But
there is some increase between 800 and 900 ft,
probably the result of using coiled tubing. There
is still no injection beyond 900 ft. Incidentally, no
diverters were used in the treatment. Experience
in nearby limestone reservoirs using conven-
tional benzoic flake and rock salt diverting agents
did not improve coverage significantly.
A second example comes from a horizontal
well drilled in fractured dolomite in Shell Canada
Ltd’s Midale field, Saskatchewan, Canada. Ini-
tially, this pumping well produced 240 BLPD with
water cut rising to near 99%.
Logs made with coiled tubing suggested that
Depth, ft
Before-Acid After-Acid
Flow Rate Flow Rate decrease in injection rate. Then, 10 gallons-per-
0 B/D 6000 0 B/D 6000 foot of 15% HCl was injected across two zones
0
near the end of the well while withdrawing the
coiled tubing. More diverting foam was then
injected. Seven gallons-per-foot of 15% HCl were
200 then injected over a long zone at the heel of the
well, again while withdrawing coiled tubing, fol-
lowed by more diverter and then a repeat injec-
tion of acid across the same zone.
400
The effect of this treatment can be seen by
comparing pre- and posttreatment temperature
profiles (below). These were obtained by pumping
600 water into the well for a period and then record-
ing temperature along the horizontal trajectory. A
temperature decrease with depth indicates
acceptance of the cool, injected water; no
800 decrease indicates that no water was accepted
and that the zone is unlikely to produce. In this
example, considerable improvement can be seen
nPre- and postacid production logs from the first in both the heel and targeted stimulation areas.
900 ft of a 1500-ft long horizontal injector in a Mid- When the well was put back on a pump, produc-
dle East limestone reservoir. Small improvements tion increased to 300 BLPD, the pumping limit,
in injection beyond 450 ft are probably due to using
and oil production increased from 3 to 48 BOPD.
coiled tubing for acid placement. There was no sig-
nificant injection beyond 900 ft either before or
after treatment.
1403
True vertical depth, m

the well probably intersected the desired frac- 1404

tured dolomite at three separate points—at the p =2000 psi

heel, midpoint and toe of the horizontal trajec- p =1200 psi
1405
tory. Otherwise, it strayed into an overlying tight
Tight zone
zone. Production logs, obtained using nitrogen lift
Fractured zone
with the coiled tubing, showed that the heel zone
1406
at low pressure (1200 psi) was not producing, 100 150 200 250 300
Horizontal section, m
while the toe zone at high pressure (2000 psi)
Production log
was producing water—probably from the field’s
waterdrive scheme. An acid treatment was there-
fore planned to improve oil production from the
Pre-acid temperature log
heel and minimize treatment of the water zone.
Initially, the entire horizontal section was cir-

Postacid temperature log

Stimulation targets

nPre- and posttemperature profiles, after injecting cool water, confirm matrix acid success using
coiled-tubing deployment in a Shell Canada well in Saskatchewan.

38 Oilfield Review
 Most recently, Laurent Prouvost and
Michael Economides proposed a method
that takes into account the transients and
can be computed in real time using the
Dowell Schlumberger MatTIME job-execu-
tion system.17 Their method takes the mea-
sured injection flow rate and, using transient
theory, computes what the injection bottom-
hole pressure would be if skin were fixed
and constant—it is generally chosen to be
zero. This is continuously compared with
the actual bottomhole pressure. As the two
pressures converge, so it can be assumed
that the well is cleaning up (right ). Finally,
the difference in pressures is used to calcu-
late skin.
The key to real-time analysis is accurately
knowing the bottomhole pressure. This can
be estimated from wellhead pressure or, if
coiled tubing is used, from surface annulus
pressure. The most reliable method, how-
ever, is to measure pressure downhole. This
can now be achieved using a sensor pack-
age fixed to the bottom of the coiled tubing.
Evaluation should not stop once the oper-
ation is complete. The proof of the pudding
is in the eating, and operators expect to
recoup acidizing cost within ten to twenty
days. From the ensuing production data,
NODAL analysis can reveal the well’s new
skin. This can be compared with new pre-
dictions obtained by simulating the actual
job—that is, using flow rates and pressures
measured while pumping the treatment flu-
ids—rather than the planned job. Under-
standing discrepancies between design and
execution is essential for optimizing future
jobs in the field.
Just about every area of matrix acidizing,
from acid systems to diverters to additives to
computer modeling to environmentally
friendly fluids has been researched and
incorporated into mainstream technique
(see “HSE Developments for Acidizing,” far
right). The remaining challenge for both
operators and the service industry is gaining
the same level of sophistication in field
practice and real-time monitoring. The tools
for improving field operations now appear
to be in place. There seems no reason why
all matrix acidizing jobs should not be prop-
erly designed and executed. The days of the
rule-of-the-thumb are over.—HE
17. Prouvost L and Economides MJ: “Real-Time Evalua-
tion of Matrix Acidizing Treatments,” Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering 1 (November
1987): 145-154.
October 1992
2000 HSE Developments for Acidizing
Health, safety and environment issues are being
1600 seriously addressed in every corner of explo-
ration and production technology. Laws are tight-
Surface injection rate, B/D
ening and the industry’s obligation to public
1200 health and environmental protection cannot relax.
Matrix acidizing is no exception.
The technique obviously cannot dispense with
800 dangerous and toxic acids such as HCl and HF,
but other fluid additives may be rendered much
safer to both the public and the environment. Cur-
400 rent examples are inhibitors used to prevent cor-
rosion of tubulars as acid is pumped downhole,
and solvents used to clean residual oil deposits
0
and pipe dope from the tubulars.
2125
When acidizing began, it was discovered that
arsenic salts could inhibit corrosion. But arsenic
Simulated
Measured is highly toxic and its use was discontinued more
than 20 years ago. Less toxic but still harmful
2000
inhibitors were substituted. Recently, Dowell
Schlumberger introduced the first environmen-
Bottomhole pressure, psi
1875 tally friendly inhibitor system, CORBAN 250ECO,
that functions up to 250°F [120°C].
CORBAN 250ECO is one of several so-called
1750 ECO pumping additives that have reduced toxicity
and increased biodegradability. For example, the
key inhibiting chemical in CORBAN 250ECO is
1625 cinnamaldehyde, a common cinnamon flavoring
additive for gum and candy.
Another ECO product made from natural
1500 sources is the recently introduced PARAN ECO
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Time, hr
additive for cleaning oil deposits and pipe dope
solvent from tubulars. This is intended to replace
nPressure comparison used to assess skin aromatic and organic halide solvents that are
in real time, following the method of Prou-
vost and Economides. Pressure predicted toxic and that also can damage refinery catalysts
from measured injection rates, assuming if produced with the oil.
the well has zero skin, is compared with
measured wellhead pressure. As the pres-
sures converge, damage is being removed.
39
Commentary: Carl Montgomery

Over half the wells ARCO stimulates each year receive matrix treatments.
But this consumes only 17% of the total ARCO stimulation budget.
Because of the relatively low cost of a matrix treatment—ARCO’s average
is $5,500 in the lower 48 states of the US—there has been very little
incentive to improve matrix treatment technology. While there are more
than six sophisticated design programs for hydraulic fracturing available
for purchase, there is not a single matrix design program for sale.
Candidate well selection is based on production Carl Montgomery,
or water injection history. The design and fluid technical coordinator
selection are based on experience—rules of of well stimulation for
thumb. Job quality control and monitoring often ARCO Oil and Gas
consist of a mechanical pressure gauge and a Company in Plano,
barrel counter. The current state of technology Texas, USA.
results in a one-in-three failure rate, with failure
defined as the well producing the same or less
than before treatment.
It appears that technology advances are moti-
vated by the job cost rather than the potential pro- nomic, nondamaging diversion techniques whose
ductivity benefits. What can be done to improve effectiveness can be documented. Foam and the
this technology without adding a lot of cost to the use of inflatable packers on coiled tubing are
treatment? viable techniques for positive diversion.

Candidate Selection and Job Design
We need a generic matrix design program that will
diagnose the degree and type of damage, recom-
mend a fluid type, expected treatment rate and
pressure, pump schedule and predict the economic
impact of the treatment. The program must make
do with the few log data that are generally avail-
able for economically marginal wells. A key part of
the diagnosis is predicting type and degree of dam-
age based on the formation mineralogy, formation
fluid composition and injected stimulation fluid
chemistry. Physicochemical models exist, but they
do not take into account reaction kinetics and how
this affects permeability.
Treatment Placement
Techniques for ensuring placement into a particu-
lar zone must be advanced. The current diverter
technologies work sporadically and many times do
more harm than good. Recent work has shown that
even when a positive diversion technique such as
ball sealers is used, over one third of the perfora-
tions become permanently blocked because the
balls permanently lodge in the perforation. Chemi-
cal diverters are many times misused or do not
meet expectations—rock salt is sometimes used
by mistake with HF acid producing plugging precip-
itates, and so-called oil-soluble resins are usually
only partially soluble in oil. We need positive, eco-
On-site Quality Control and Job Profiling
To improve treatment efficiency, we need more
monitoring and controlling of the job on loca-
tion—a few service companies provide this option
for a nominal fee. This should include testing of the
fluids to be pumped—to ensure concentration,
quality and quantity. To profile job effectiveness,
digitized data are required for real-time, on-site
data interpretation and postjob analysis. This data
should be used to determine the evolution of skin
with time, radius of formation treated and the
height of the treated interval.
Continuous Mixing of Acid
All matrix treatments are currently batch mixed. If
real-time job monitoring becomes widely avail-
able, it will give the operator an idea of the most
effective volumes of fluid to pump, when to drop
diverters, what the diverter efficiency is, and the
depth of damage and height of treated interval. To
take advantage of this information, the service
company must have the capability and be ready to
custom blend the required treatment in real time
using continuous mixing. Service companies know
how to continuous mix, but so far have not provided
the technology for matrix treatment.

40 Oilfield Review
COMPLETION/STIMULATION
Sand Control: Why and How?
Jon Carlson Derrel Gurley
Chevron Services Co. Houston, Texas, USA
Houston, Texas, USA
Sand production erodes hardware,
blocks tubulars, creates downhole
cavities, and must be separated
and disposed of on surface. Com-
pletion methods that allow sand-
prone reservoirs to be exploited
often severely reduce production
efficiency. The challenge is to
complete wells to keep formation
sand in place without unduly
restricting productivity.
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to: Bob
Elder, Chevron UK Ltd., London, England; David Wag-
ner, Chevron Exploration and Production Services Co.,
Houston, Texas, USA; Mike Mayer, Dowell Schlumber-
ger, Montrouge, France; Roger Card, Loren Haugland
and Ian Walton, Dowell Schlumberger, Tulsa, Okla-
homa, USA.
In this article, NODAL (production system analysis) and
IMPACT (Integrated Mechanical Properties Analysis &
Characterization of Near Wellbore Heterogeneity) are
marks of Schlumberger; PacCADE, ISOPAC and
PERMPAC are trademarks or service marks of Dowell
Schlumberger.
1. Veeken CAM, Davies DR, Kenter CJ and Kooijman
AP: “Sand Production Prediction Review: Developing
an Integrated Approach,” paper SPE 22792, presented
at the 66th SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
2. Anderson R, Coates G, Denoo S, Edwards D and
Risnes R: “Formation Collapse in a Producing Well,”
The Technical Review 34, no. 3 (October 1986): 29-32.
October 1992
George King Colin Price-Smith
Amoco Production Co. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
nPerils of sand production. At worst, sand
production threatens a well. Voids can form
behind the pipe, causing formation subsi-
dence and casing collapse. The well may
also fill with sand and cease flowing. Or
the surface equipment may be catastroph-
ically damaged by erosion or plugging.
Frank Waters
BP Exploration Inc.
Houston, Texas, USA
Unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs with
permeability of 0.5 to 8 darcies are most
susceptible to sand production, which may
start during first flow or later when reservoir
pressure has fallen or water breaks through.
Sand production strikes with varying
degrees of severity, not all of which require
action. The rate of sand production may
decline with time at constant production
conditions and is frequently associated with
cleanup after stimulation.
Sometimes, even continuous sand pro-
duction is tolerated. But this option may
lead to a well becoming seriously damaged,
production being killed or surface equip-
ment being disabled (left ). What constitutes
an acceptable level of sand production
depends on operational constraints like
resistance to erosion, separator capacity,
ease of sand disposal and the capability of
artificial lift equipment to remove sand-
laden fluid from the well.1
This article reviews the causes of sanding,
and how it can be predicted and controlled.
It will examine the four main methods of
sand control: one that introduces an artifi-
cial cement into the formation and three
that use downhole filters in the wellbore.
The article then focuses on gravel packing,
by far the most popular method of complet-
ing sand-prone formations.
Causes of Sanding
Factors controlling the onset of mechanical
rock failure include inherent rock strength,
naturally existing earth stresses and addi-
tional stress caused by drilling or produc-
tion.2 In totally unconsolidated formations,
sand production may be triggered during
the first flow of formation fluid due to drag
from the fluid or gas turbulence. This
detaches sand grains and carries them into
41

Fluid inflow
Cement
Fluid inflow
Perforation tunnel
Formation sand
Fluid inflow
nDoorway to the wellbore. A stable arch is
believed to form around the entrance to a
perforation cavity. This arch remains sta-
ble as long as flow rate and drawdown are
constant. If these are altered, the arch col-
lapses and a new one forms once flow sta-
bilizes again.
the perforations. The effect grows with higher
fluid viscosity and flow rate, and with high
pressure differentials during drawdown.3
In better cemented rocks, sanding may be
sparked by incidents in the well’s produc-
tive life, for example, fluctuations in produc-
tion rate, onset of water production,
changes in gas/liquid ratio, reduced reser-
voir pressure or subsidence.4
Fluctuations in the production rate affect
perforation cavity stability and in some
cases hamper the creation and maintenance
of sand arches. An arch is a hemispherical
cap of interlocking sand grains—like the
stones in an arched doorway—that is stable
at constant drawdown and flow rate, pre-
venting sand movement (above ). Changes
in flow rate or production shut-in may result
in collapse of the arch, causing sand to be
produced until a new arch forms.5
Other causes of sanding include water
influx, which commonly causes sand pro-
duction by reducing capillary pressure
between sand grains. After water break-
through, sand particles are dislodged by
flow friction. Additionally, perforating may
reduce permeability around the surface of a
perforation cavity and weaken the formation
(right ). Weakened zones may then become
susceptible to failure at sudden changes in
flow rate.
42
Predicting Sanding Potential
The completion engineer needs to know the
conditions under which a well will produce
sand. This is not always a straightforward
task. At its simplest, sand prediction
involves observing the performance of
nearby offset wells.
In exploratory wells, a sand flow test is
often used to assess the formation stability.
A sand flow test involves sand production
being detected and measured on surface
during a drillstem test (DST).6 Quantitative
information may be acquired by gradually
increasing flow rate until sand is produced,
the anticipated flow capacity of the comple-
tion is reached or the maximum drawdown
is achieved. A correlation may then be
established between sand production, well
data, and field and operational parameters.
Accurately predicting sand production
potential requires detailed knowledge of the
formation’s mechanical strength, the in-situ
earth stresses and the way the rock will fail.
Laboratory measurements on recovered
cores may be used to gather rock strength
data. Field techniques like microfracturing
allow measurement of some far-field earth
stresses (see “Cracking Rock: Progress in
Fracture Treatment Design,” page 4 ). This
information may then be used to predict the
drawdown pressure that will induce sanding.7
Although these techniques provide direct
measurement of critical input data, they are
relatively expensive to acquire and are only
available for discrete depths—in some of the
Casing Debris Compacted zone
Before cleanup
Cement Perforation tunnel
Compacted zone
After cleanup
nDebris and damage in the perforation
tunnel. Before cleanup, a perforation
tunnel may be filled with pulverized
sand and shaped-charge debris. First
flow may remove this debris, but a
compacted zone can remain around
the surface of the cavity that is weak-
ened and likely to suffer tensile failure.
zones of some of the wells. Downhole wire-
line log measurements provide continuous
profiles of data. However, no logging tool
yields a direct measurement of rock strength
or in-situ stress. This has given rise to inter-
pretation techniques that combine direct
measurements with sonic and density logs to
derive the elastic properties of rock and pre-
dict from these the sanding potential.8
A example is IMPACT Integrated Mechan-
ical Properties Analysis & Characterization
of Near Wellbore Heterogeneity, recently
developed by Schlumberger Well Services,
Houston, Texas, USA. The IMPACT analysis
predicts formation sanding potential using
values for formation strength obtained by
correlating logs and cores, in-situ stress
parameters derived from geologic models
that employ log and microfracture data and
one of two rock failure models.
Despite the fact that cores may be signifi-
cantly altered during the journey from well-
bore to laboratory, rock strength measure-
ments gathered from core tests are crucial to
the IMPACT analysis computation of rock
strength. In a uniaxial compressive test, a
circular cylinder of rock is compressed par-
allel to its longitudinal axis, and axial and
radial displacements are measured. The
dynamic elastic properties—in particular
Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s ratio—and
uniaxial compressive strength may then be
computed. Triaxial tests make the same
measurements at different confining pres-
sures and give a more complete picture of
the rock’s failure envelope as a function of
confining stress.
Because there is no unifying theory that
relates log measurements to rock strength,
using the laboratory core data, empirical
correlations are derived to obtain the
desired rock strength parameters from log-
derived elastic properties. The IMPACT soft-
ware has several empirical correlations to
choose from.
The earth’s in-situ stresses are due to
many factors including the weight of the
overburden, tectonic forces and pore pres-
sure. While the vertical stresses may be esti-
mated using bulk density logs, horizontal
stresses are more problematic. In IMPACT
processing, accurate estimates of horizontal
stresses are integrated with logs and, using a
geologic model, a continuous profile of
earth stresses is created. Various geologic
models have been developed to cope with
the different environments encountered.
Reservoir pore pressure information is also
needed and this may be estimated using
wireline formation testing tools or DSTs.
Oilfield Review
 Finally, rocks either fail in tension when
they are pulled apart or they fail in shear
when they are crushed. IMPACT analysis
enables the interpreter to pick the most
likely failure mechanism. From this, the
program predicts sanding potential.
Completion Options
Once it has been established that at planned
production rates sand is likely to be pro-
duced, the next step is to choose a comple-
tion strategy to limit sanding. A first option
is to treat the well with “tender loving care,”
minimizing shocks to the reservoir by
changing drawdown and production rate
slowly and in small increments. Production
rate may be reduced to ensure that draw-
down is below the the point at which the
formation grains become detached. More
subtly, selective perforation may avoid
zones where sanding is most likely. How-
ever, both options reduce production, which
may adversely affect field economics.9
The most popular options for completing
sand-prone reservoirs physically restrain
sand movement. The four main classes of
completion are resin injection, slotted liners
and prepacked screens, resin-coated gravel
without screens and gravel packing.
Resin Injection: To cement the sand grains
in situ, a resin is injected into the formation,
generally through perforations, and then
flushed with a catalyst. Most commercially
available systems employ phenolic, furan or
epoxy resins. They bind rock particles
together creating a stable matrix of perme-
able, consolidated grains around the casing.
Clay concentration can hinder the effec-
tiveness of the consolidation process, so a
clay stabilizer is often used as a preflush.
Residual water may also interfere with the
development of consolidation strength and
may necessitate use of increased quantities
of resin.10 The quantity of resin injected is a
compromise between enhancing consolida-
tion strength and reducing permeability. For
example, if an 8-darcy unconsolidated sand
is resin treated to give a compressive
strength of up to 3300 psi, permeability may
be reduced by 25% and productivity cut by
up to 10%.11
Further, sand production will not be pre-
vented if chemical injection is uneven and
some exposed sand is uncoated. Because of
this, the technique tends to be reserved for
short intervals, up to 10 to 15 ft [3 to 4 m].
Complete coverage of larger zones is diffi-
cult unless selective placement tools are
used. Although resin consolidation is used
successfully, it accounts for no more than
about 10% of sand-control completions.
October 1992
Slotted Liners and Prepacked Screens: Slot-
ted pipes, screens and prepacked screens
offer the lowest-cost downhole filtering.
Slotted liners have the largest holes, wire-
wrapped screens have smaller openings,
while screens prepacked with resin-coated
sand offer the finest filtering. Each type can
be run as part of the completion string and
are particularly suited for high-angle wells,
which cannot be easily completed other-
wise (see “Screening Horizontal Wells,”
page 45 ).
Slots are typically sized to cause bridging
of the largest 10% of the formation particles,
filling the annulus between the screen and
casing, or open hole, with formation sand
creating a filter for remaining particles.
However, production can be restricted by
this relatively low-permeability, sand-
packed annulus. Also, production of even a
small amount of fines can plug many
screens, particularly prepacked screens,
within a few hours of installation.
Slotted liners and screens are best suited
to formations that are friable rather than
completely unconsolidated. They are mostly
used in California, USA, and some Gulf of
Mexico, USA fields where permeabilities
are greater than 1 darcy. Slotted liners and
prepacked screens are used in only about
5% of sand-control completions.
3. Morita N and Boyd PA: “Typical Sand Production
Problems: Case Studies and Strategies for Sand Con-
trol,” paper SPE 22739, presented at the 66th SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
4. Winchester PH: “The Cardinal Rules of Gravel Pack-
ing to Avoid Formation Damage,” paper SPE 19476,
presented at the SPE Asia-Pacific Conference, Sydney,
Australia, September 13-15, 1989.
5. Bratli R K and Risnes R: “Stability and Failure of Sand
Arches,” paper SPE 8427, presented at the 54th SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las
Vegas, Nevada, USA, September 23-26, 1979.
Tippie DB and Kohlhaas CA: “Variation of Skin Dam-
age with Flow Rate Associated With Sand Flow or Sta-
bility in Unconsolidated-Sand Reservoirs,” paper SPE
4886, presented at the 44th SPE Annual California
Regional Meeting, San Francisco, California, USA,
April 4-5, 1974.
Morita N, Whitfill DL, Massie I and Knudsen TW:
“Realistic Sand-Production Prediction: Numerical
Approach,” SPE Production Engineering 4, no. 1
(February 1989): 15-24.
6. Deruyck B, Ehlig-Economides C and Joseph J: “Testing
Design and Analysis,” Oilfield Review 4, no. 2 (April
1992): 28-45.
7. Morita and Boyd, reference 3.
8. Santarelli FJ, Ouadfel H and Zundel JP: “Optimizing
the Completion Procedure to Minimize Sand Produc-
tion Risk,” paper SPE 22797, presented at the 66th
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
Tixier MP, Loveless GW and Anderson RA: “Estima-
tion of Formation Strength From the Mechanical Prop-
erties Log,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 27
(March 1975): 283-293.
Stein N: “Determine Properties of Friable Formation
Sands,” World Oil 206, no. 3 (March 1988): 33-37.
Resin-Coated Gravel Without Screens:
Resin-coated gravel may be used as a
downhole filter without installing a screen.
The gravel is circulated into position as a
slurry, either inside casing or open hole and
then squeezed to form a plug across the
production zone. Adjacent particles are
bonded together by the resin, strengthening
the pack.
In cased hole, the plug may be com-
pletely drilled out to leave gravel-filled per-
forations. Alternatively, the pack may be
drilled out to the top of the perforations/
open hole so that hydrocarbons are pro-
duced through the pack. A narrow hole can
be drilled through the pack to provide a
conduit to reduce drawdown through the
pack. This can be achieved using coiled
tubing if a conventional rig is not available.
Resin-coated gravel has the advantage of
needing no special hardware. But the pack
creates significant additional drawdown that
may affect productivity. If the drillout tech-
nique is employed to reduce drawdown, all
perforations must be evenly packed and the
resulting pack may be fragile. Complete
coverage of intervals longer than about 20 ft
[6 m] is difficult to achieve. The technique
represents about 5% of sand-control treat-
ments, mainly concentrated on low-cost
onshore markets.
9. Massie I, Nygaard O and Morita N: “Gullfaks Subsea
Wells: An Operator’s Implementation of a New Sand
Production Prediction Model,” paper SPE 16893,
presented at the 62nd SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, September
27-30, 1987.
Unneland T and Waage RI: “Experience and Evalua-
tion of Production Through High-Rate Gravel-
Packed Oil Wells, Gullfaks Field, North Sea,” paper
SPE 22795, presented at the 66th SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
USA, October 6-9, 1991.
10. Pelgrom J and Wilson RA: “Completion Develop-
ments in Unconsolidated Oil-Rim Reservoirs,” paper
OSEA 90123, presented at the Eighth Offshore South
East Asia Conference, Singapore, December 4-7,
1990.
11. Davies, DR: “Applications of Polymers in Sand Con-
trol,” paper presented at Use of Polymers in Drilling
and Oilfield Fluids, organized by the Offshore Engi-
neering Group of the Plastics and Rubber Institute,
London, England, December 9, 1991.
43
Gravel Packing: Gravel packing has been
used by the oil industry since the 1930s.
Today, it is the most widely employed sand
control measure, accounting for about
three-quarters of treatments.12 A slurry of
accurately sized gravel in a carrier fluid is
pumped into the annular space between a
centralized screen and either perforated
casing or open hole. The gravel also enters
perforations if a cased-hole gravel pack is
being performed. As pumping continues,
carrier fluid leaks off into the formation or
through the screen and back to surface. The
gravel pack creates a granular filter with
very high permeability—about 120 dar-
cies—but prevents formation sand entering
the well (below ).
Gravel packs are not without their draw-
backs. During installation, carrier fluid is
injected into the formation which may dam-
age the reservoir permeability and restrict
production. The pack then tends to trap the
damage in the perforations, preventing
clean up. Once in place, the pack in perfo-
ration tunnels increases drawdown which
may seriously affect productivity.13 Gravel
packs reduce the operating wellbore diame-
ter, usually necessitating artificial lift equip-
ment to be set above the zone. Completing
multiple zones with gravel packs is difficult,
and almost all well repairs involve the
removal of the screen and pack.
Casing
Cement
Gravel pack
Screen
Perforation
Formation sand
Screen
nAnatomy of a cased-
hole gravel pack.
44
Designing Gravel Packs
Water breakthrough
For a gravel pack to maintain long-term
productivity, the gravel must be clean,
Oil production rate
tightly packed and placed with the mini-
mum damage to the formation. These
Water breakthrough requirements depend on the correct selec-
tion of gravel, carrier fluid and placement
Natural Gravel pack technique. They also rely on scrupulous
completion cleanliness during placement operations to
prevent the contamination of the gravel
pack by small particles that significantly
0 5 10 15 reduce pack permeability.
Time, yr Minimizing the pressure drop in the per-
nAssessing the viability of a gravel pack. foration tunnels is vital to successful gravel
The oil production rate for natural comple- packing and this requires gravel that is as
tion—unstimulated and not gravel packed— large as possible. But since the pack must
is compared with that for a gravel pack in
an intermediate-strength rock that is sensi- act as an effective filter, the gravel also has
tive to water breakthrough. to be small enough to restrain formation
particles. This depends on the size of the
The technique is also a relatively expen- formation sand, which is usually measured
sive method of completion. A sophisticated using sieve analysis.
way of establishing the viability of a gravel
pack is to construct well performance
1.0
curves for a range of completion methods
pack-permeability ratio
using a reservoir simulator and predictions .8
Effective/initial
of sand movement and how this affects
drawdown (above ). .6
Although gravel packing has these draw-
.4
backs, it is the most effective method of
stopping sand movement and permitting .2
production, albeit at a reduced rate.
0
Because of this, gravel packing is the pre- 0 4 8 12 16
dominant method in use today and warrants Gravel/grain-size ratio
a detailed examination.
nChoosing gravel size range. The ratio of
the effective pack permeability and the
initial pack permeability represents the
effect of the formation sand particles as
they partially plug the gravel pack. When
the gravel size/grain-size ratio reaches
about six, the particles can enter the pack
and seriously diminish pack permeability.
Formation samples from cores are passed
through successively smaller sieves to sepa-
rate particles into a number of size groups
Gravel-packed perforations
that are then weighed and plotted. If the sam-
ples are aggregated, they need to be broken
up before the analysis—clay and silt particles
Perforated casing
binding the rock together may be removed
Formation sand
Gravel-packed
by washing with chemicals. The resulting
sand grains may then be dried and sieved.
Cement
annulus
There are various methods for translating
the formation sand size distribution into a
design size for the gravel. One of the most
widely used methods is based on work car-
ried out by R.J. Saucier that recommends
the median gravel size should be up to six
times the median formation grain size but
no more (above ).14
(continued on page 47)
12. Winchester, reference 4.
13. Welling R and Nyland T: “Detailed Testing of Grav-
elpacked Completions” paper OSEA 90121, pre-
sented at the Eighth Offshore South East Asia Confer-
ence, Singapore, December 4-7, 1990.
14. Saucier RJ: “Considerations in Gravel Pack Design,”
Journal of Petroleum Technology 26, (February
1974): 205-212.
 Screening Horizontal Wells

Studies generally conclude that the most effec- nHorizontal well com-
tive technique for excluding sand in high-angle pletion design for the
Alba field.
and horizontal wells is gravel packing.1 Although
430-ft water depth
there have been some notable operational suc-
cesses, the technical complexities of high-angle
gravel packing and its relatively high cost mean
that alternative techniques are often considered.2
A case in point in the UK North Sea is the Alba
30-in. casing, 800 ft MD/TVD
field which is operated by Chevron UK Ltd. The
350-ft [107-m] thick Eocene sand reservoir is
completely unconsolidated and currently under
development. Most of the field’s production wells 20-in. casing, 1200 ft MD/TVD
will have horizontal sections of up to 2600 ft.
When the field comes onstream, each well will
103/4-in. casing, 1500 ft MD/TVD
produce up to 30,000 B/D using electric sub-
mersible pumps.
Water breakthrough is expected after only two
months of production and 40% water cut is
133/8-in. casing set between: 2500 ft -4000 ft MD
expected by the end of the first year. Early water 2500 ft -3500 ft TVD
production will exacerbate sand production by
reducing the interstitial tension between sand
grains, making sand control a major factor of the
development plan.
Initial plans called for horizontal cased-hole
gravel packs. However, the company continued to 95/8-in. casing set ± 200 ft into horizontal:

study alternative solutions and concluded that 7000 ft–9500 ft MD

prepacked screens could successfully keep sand
at bay (right). Prepacked screens cost signifi-
cantly less than gravel packs and are simpler to
install. What convinced Chevron was not the cost
but the increased internal diameter (ID) afforded
by the prepacked screens—4.4 in. [11 cm] as
opposed to the 2.9 in. [7.4 cm] of the planned
gravel packs.
Larger ID reduces the pressure drop along the
horizontal length of the well, leading to a better
inflow distribution—when the pressure drop is
high, production from the near end of the well-
bore is favored. In the field’s conventionally devi-
ated wells, where pressure differential will not
significantly affect inflow performance, Chevron
will employ conventional gravel packs.
The prepacked screens will comprise 5-in. pipe
wrapped with two layers of screen with an out-
5/8-in.
side diameter of 6 [16.8-cm]. Between the
screen will be a 1/2-in. [1.3 -cm] thick pack of
October 1992
Eocene
with prepacked screen
resin-coated gravel. The screens will be inserted
into open hole, 8 1/2-in. [22-cm] diameter, so
there is a likelihood of sand sloughing around the
screens. Chevron tested the effects of sloughing
on permeability around the wellbore. At worst, it
reduced permeability from 3 darcies to 1, not
enough to significantly limit production.
On the downside, the longevity of the screens
is uncertain and there is a lack of zonal isolation
afforded by an openhole completion. In an effort
to combat this, blank sections with internal seals
will be deployed every 400 ft [120 m] of screen,
allowing fluids to be spotted, and plugs and
straddle packers to be set using coiled tubing.
6200 ft–6400 ft TVD
81/2-in. open hole
1000 ft–2600 ft
1. Forrest JK: “Horizontal Gravel Packing Studies in a Full-
Scale Model Wellbore,” paper SPE 20681, presented at
the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 23-26, 1990.
Sparlin DD and Hagen WH Jr: “Gravel Packing Horizontal
and High-Angle Wells,” World Oil 213, no. 3 (March
1992): 45-49.
2. Wilson DJ and Barrilleaux MF: “Completion Design and
Operational Considerations for Multizone Gravel Packs in
Deep, High-Angle Wells,” paper OTC 6751, presented at
the 23rd Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Hous-
ton, Texas, USA, May 6-9, 1991.
Zaleski TE Jr: “Sand-Control Alternatives for Horizontal
Wells,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 43 (May 1991):
509-511.
45
 1. Squeeze position 2. Upper circulating position 3. Lower circulating position 4. Reversing position

Service tool

Permanent-retrievable
packer

Ported housing

Sealbore housing

Locating collars

Blank pipe

Primary screen

‘O’ ring seal sub

Lower telltale

Sump packer

Seal unit

nThe four positions for gravel packing. In
squeeze position, the service tool seals into
the packer and does not allow circulation.
When slurry is pumped in this mode, all
the carrier fluid leaks off into the formation.
In upper circulating position, slurry is
pumped down the casing-screen annulus
and the carrier fluid can be squeezed
through any part of the screen, into the
washpipe at the bottom of the service tool
and back to surface via the service tool-
casing annulus above the packer.
In lower circulating position, slurry is
also pumped down the casing-screen
annulus, but returns of carrier fluid have to
pass through the bottom of the pack where
the washpipe is sealed into the lower tell-
tale—a sealbore with a short piece of
screen below—located below the main
screen. The aim is try to maintain flow in
the casing-screen annulus and ensure that
there is not a void in the gravel in the
annulus below the screen.
However, if the interval being packed is
longer than 25 ft [8 m], backpressure on
the fluid may cause the fluid to bypass the
pack and pass down the well via the
screen/washpipe annulus, which may
encourage bridging off higher up the well.
Reverse circulation involves pumping
fluid through the washpipe, up the screen/
washpipe annulus and back up to surface.

46 Oilfield Review
 Recently, work by B.W. Hainey and J.C.
Troncoso of ARCO points to the possibility
of using larger gravel, offering higher pack
permeability.15 To explain this, Hainey and
Troncoso argue that in some cases formation
sand grains move as larger agglomerates
rather than as individual grains.16
Average grain size is not the only determi-
nant of gravel-pack permeability. The best
gravel-pack sands are round and evenly
sized. The most common way of estimating
roundness and sphericity is by examining
the gravel through a 10- to 20-power micro-
scope and comparing the shapes with a ref-
erence chart. Gravel-size distribution can be
monitored by sieve analysis.
The next decision facing the engineer is
whether the completion should be cased or
openhole. Openhole gravel packs have no
perforations and therefore offer the mini-
mum pressure drop across the pack. But
placement may be time-consuming. Care
must be taken to remove the filter cake
deposited on the formation by drilling fluid
and to avoid abrading the formation and
contaminating the gravel. Cased-hole gravel
packs present the additional challenge of
properly packing the perforations.
To check that a well is suitable for cased-
hole gravel packing, productivity may be
calculated using NODAL production system
analysis. This models the pressure drop as
reservoir fluid flows through the perforations
into the completion hardware to surface.
Pressure drop in perforation tunnels is a
major impediment to production and varies
with tunnel length, perforation area, pack
permeability, viscosity of the produced flu-
ids and reservoir pressure (see “Choosing a
Perforation Strategy,” page 54). The gravel
size range determines pack permeability—
the smaller the grains, the more the pack
restricts formation flow—and is fixed by the
size of the formation sand. Formation fluid
viscosity and reservoir pressure are also
fixed. To reduce pressure drop, inflow area
may be raised by increasing perforation
diameter and/or increasing the number of
perforations. If the well is perforated with
tubing-conveyed perforating (TCP), high
shot density guns, gravel packs can nearly
match the inflow performance of openhole
packs for many reservoirs. Pressure drop
may also be reduced by increasing the
diameter of casing in which the gravel pack
is to be placed. If sufficient inflow area can-
not be achieved through perforation, open-
hole completion is required.
October 1992
Once the method of completion is
selected, the hardware may be chosen. At
its simplest, a packer and screen assembly
with a washpipe inside are usually run in
hole with a service tool. However, when
multiple zones are to be completed in
stages, the hardware becomes a complex
series of screens and packers.
The service tool is then used to set the
packer above the zone to be completed.
Thereafter, the positions of the service tool
in the packer and washpipe in the screen
assembly determine the flow direction of
fluids pumped downhole. Sophisticated sys-
tems have four positions: squeeze, upper
circulating, lower circulating and reverse
circulating and therefore allow single-trip
treatments (previous page).
In a single-trip gravel-pack treatment, the
perforation guns are fired and lowered into
the rathole. The perforations may be filled
with gravel with the packer in the squeeze
position and the annulus is filled with it in
either the upper or lower circulating posi-
tions. Excess gravel is then reversed out.
However, the hardware used in many
gravel-pack operations does not permit sin-
gle-trip operations. For a cased-hole gravel
pack, the TCP guns must be retrieved and
then the workstring must removed after
gravel packing so that the completion string
may be run. During these trips, the service
tool and the washpipe are withdrawn from
the packer, exposing the relatively high-per-
meability formation to the hydrostatic pres-
sure of the completion fluid above the
packer. This usually causes fluid to be lost
into the formation.
To reduce losses, particulate loss control
material (LCM) suspended in a viscous fluid
is commonly pumped downhole before
each trip. The LCM plugs the completion
fluid’s flow path into the formation. After the
trip, the LCM is removed. Common LCMs
include marble chips (calcium carbonate,
removable with acid), oil-soluble resins or
salt pills (see “Gravel Packing Forth Field
Exploration Wells,” next page ).
Each time LCM is used, there is a danger
of incomplete removal damaging the reser-
voir. To avoid the need to pump LCM when
the washpipe and workstring are removed
from the packer, a flapper valve can be
employed below the packer. This valve is
capable of accommodating a large-diameter
washpipe to direct flow to the casing-screen
annulus. It closes after the service tool and
washpipe are removed, preventing comple-
tion fluid from passing through the pack and
into the permeable formation. When the
completion string is run, the flapper valve is
opened—either mechanically, with wireline
or using pressure.
Wire-wrapped screens are usually used to
retain the gravel. Selection of wire spacing
is not subject to any hard and fast rules, but
a common rule of thumb calls for the slots
to be 75% of the smallest gravel diameter.
Screen diameter depends on the inlet area,
the pack thickness and the ability to fish the
screen out of the hole. This normally leads
to using screens with at least 1-in. [2.5 cm]
annular clearance. Screens are normally
run 5 ft [1.5 m] above and below the pro-
ducing zone and centralized every 15 ft [5
m] to improve the chances of a consistent
gravel fill.
Transporting gravel into the perforations
and annulus is the next consideration.
Gravel can sometimes bridge off prema-
turely, leaving voids in the annulus. In verti-
cal wells, incomplete fill may be rectified
when pumping stops and gravel in the
annulus collapses into the voids. This ceases
to be the case in wells deviated more than
50°, where voids below a bridge are likely
to remain. Transport is a function of the sus-
pension properties of the fluid and the
energy required to move the slurry. Impor-
tant factors determining settling are pump
rate, the relative densities of the gravel and
the carrier fluid, gravel diameter and the
apparent viscosity of the fluid when
pumped downhole.17
There is also a relationship between
gravel concentration and carrier fluid vis-
cosity when it comes to “turning the corner”
in the annulus and entering perforations.
Fluid viscosity must increase if gravel con-
centration in the slurry increases, otherwise
the gravel will tend to sink to the bottom of
the well. Packing efficiency is also affected
by the rate the carrier fluid leaks off into the
formation. If leakoff is rapid, the gravel is
likely to be carried to the perforation tunnel-
formation interface and held there as the
fluid leaks off. If leakoff is slow, the gravel
has more time to settle and will not effec-
tively pack the perforations.
15. According to American Petroleum Institute recom-
mended practices (RP 58), the designation 40/60
indicates that not more than 2% of the gravel should
be smaller than the 40-mesh sieve and not more
than 0.1% should be larger than the 20-mesh sieve.
16. Hainey BW and Troncoso JC: “Frac-Pack: An Inno-
vative Stimulation and Sand Control Technique,”
paper SPE 23777, presented at the SPE International
Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, February 26-27, 1992.
17. Gurley DG and Hudson TE: “Factors Affecting
Gravel Placement in Long Deviated Intervals,” paper
SPE 19400, presented at the SPE Formation Damage
Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA,
February 22-23, 1990.
47
 Gravel Packing Forth Field Exploration Wells

There is no such thing as a typical gravelpack; nPrepacking the perfo-

each is a complex combination of relatively sim- rations. Prepacking the
perforations prevents
ple operations. This example is based on a
loss control material from
gravel-packing procedure used on several verti-
entering the perforation
cal appraisal wells in the Forth field in the UK tunnels; this improves
North Sea operated by BP Exploration. Forth, dis- subsequent cleanup and
covered in 1986, has an Eocene reservoir com- reduces damage. Tub-
prising massive, clean sand located at a depth of ing-conveyed perforating
guns were dropped,
about 5500 ft [1675 m]. Permeability is 6 to 12
gravel was bullheaded
millidarcies and porosity is 35%.1 Gravel slurry Loss control material into the perforations and
Cleanliness is fundamental to gravel packing pill loss control material
efficiency. Any contaminants that may plug the spotted across the tun-
gravel pack and decrease productivity must be nel entrances.
removed. In preparation for the gravel packing,
the mud pits were cleaned and the mud changed
Prepack gravel
to brine completion fluid. Tubulars were exter-
nally shot blasted, internally jetted and steam
cleaned before being run in hole. Because the
dope used to lubricate pipe joints is a serious
contaminant, it was applied sparingly to the pin Casing
end only.
Cement for the production casing was dis- Formation Loss control material
Cement
placed with seawater. The cement scours the cas-
ing, but to further clean the wellbore, scrapers Gun fish Settled excess gravel
were run and seawater circulated at high pump
rates. Cleanup pills of detergent, scouring pills
with gel spacers and flocculants were also circu-
lated. The well was then displaced to brine. Ini- perforation was performed to remove debris. The The LCM pill was dissolved by circulating
tial returns of seawater-contaminated brine were TCP guns were then dropped off. BP decided to unsaturated brine and the main gravel pack circu-
discarded before the system was closed and sur- prepack the perforations with gravel prior to run- lated into place. A second LCM pill was then
face filters employed to reduce the maximum ning the screen assembly. This strategy was used spotted across the screen to allow recovery of the
particulate size to less than 2 microns [µm]. to limit formation damage and prevent loss con- service tool without losing completion fluid into
Solids in the brine were monitored to ensure that trol material from entering the perforation tun- the formation (next page, left). The final comple-
there were fewer than 10 parts per million. nels (above). tion hardware was run and the LCM dissolved.
Perforation was carried out using tubing-con- Gravel in gelled carrier fluid was circulated
veyed perforating (TCP) guns with an underbal- into place and then squeezed into the perfora- 1. Gilchrist JM and Gilchrist AL: “A Review of Gravel Pack-
ing in the Forth Field,” paper SPE 23128, presented at the
ance of about 300 psi. A short flow of 2 ft3/ft of tions. This was repeated two or three times to Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland,
ensure that all the perforations were packed. An September 3-6, 1991.

LCM pill of sodium chloride in xanthan gum and a

modified starch was then spotted across the
packed perforations to prevent loss of completion
fluid while the tubing was pulled.
A sump packer was set below the zone to be
completed and above the dropped TCP guns. The
main packer, service tool and screen assembly
were then run and the packer set.

48 Oilfield Review
 There is no industry consensus on govern-
ing choice of fluid viscosity and gravel con-
centration, but the following three combina-
tions are the most common:
•In conventional, circulating gravel packs,
most of the carrier fluid squeezed out of
the slurry is circulated back to surface.
The slurry usually has a low-viscosity car-
Packer
rier fluid of less than 50 centipoise (cp)
Gravel pack and ungelled water is a common carrier.
extension Gravel concentration can range from 0.25
with sliding sleeve
to 15 lbm/gal depending on the carrier
Sliding sleeve closed
fluid viscosity and company preference.
Crossover The technique is generally employed for
intervals of more than 50 ft [15 m] and
Washpipe deviated holes up to horizontal. Fluid
leakoff is essential to ensure that perfora-
Blank pipe tions are packed, but excessive leakoff
may lead to bridging.
•High-density circulating gravel packs are
used for medium to long intervals—25 ft
Main gravel [8 m] to more than 100 ft [30 m]. The
pack screen slurry usually has a viscosity of more than
50 cp and a gravel concentration of 7 to
15 lbm/gal.
‘O’ ring seal sub •Squeeze packs, in which all the carrier
Tell tale screen fluid leaks off into the formation, are used
for short intervals of less than 25 ft.
Washpipe bottom
The conventional approach to controlling
settling—decreasing gravel concentration
Sump packer
and increasing carrier-fluid viscosity—has
drawbacks. To place an equivalent quantity
of gravel, more carrier fluid must be lost,
Logging reference increasing the potential for formation dam-
screen age. However, increased viscosity slows the
Wireline reentry rate of leakoff—a 250-cp fluid will leak off
guide more than six times slower than a 40-cp
fluid.18 Increasing carrier-fluid viscosity may
nDissolving the loss control material and circulating also increase formation damage.
an annular gravel pack. Sometimes, in an effort to improve place-
ment, carrier-fluid viscosity and gravel con-
centration are both increased to create a
plug of slurry. But increased slurry viscosity
raises friction pressure and may increase the
possibility of bridging in the annulus.
Another way of reducing settling, helping
gravel to turn the corner and efficiently pack
perforations is to use a gravel and carrier
fluid of closely matched densities—not the
case when using conventional gravels or
low-density brines. For this purpose, Dowell
Schlumberger has developed ISOPAC low-
density, high-strength particles. Because set-
18. Hudson TE and Martin JW: “Use of Low-Density,
Gravel-Pack Material Improves Placement Effi-
ciency (Part 2),” paper SPE 18227, presented at the
63rd SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Houston, Texas, USA, October 2-5, 1988.
Bryant D, Hudson T and Hoover S: “The Use of
Low-Density Particles for Packing a Highly Devi-
ated Well,” paper SPE 20984, presented at Europec
90, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 22-24,
1990.
October 1992
tling is not a major problem when the densi-
ties are matched, the pump rate can be
slowed, improving tightness of the pack and
increasing the time available to pack all the
perforations (below and next page). The
reduced viscosity increases the rate of
leakoff and reduces the potential for forma-
tion damage.
ISOPAC particles have been used in over
30 Gulf of Mexico and North Sea jobs since
introduction in 1991. The efficiency with
which perforations have been packed can-
not be measured directly. One indirect diag-
nostic method is based on the average vol-
ume of gravel placed per foot of interval
(ft3/ft). Rules of thumb derived from experi-
ence consider the placement efficiency of
about 0.25 ft3/ft of conventional gravel as
being satisfactory for intervals of less than
60 ft [18 m]. For longer intervals it is more
difficult to fill all the perforations equally
and, if the interval is 100 ft or so, an average
placement efficiency of only about 0.1 ft3/ft
ISOPAC particle
Low-density Polymer coating
ceramic core to resist acid
100
at
les flo
Packing efficiency, %
Partic
Pa
90
rtic
les
sin
k
80
70
0.8 1.2 1.8 2.2 2.8
Particle density/carrier fluid density, Dp:Dc
Optimum Dp:Dc ratio using ISOPAC
particles
Standard Dp:Dc ratio using gravel
nEffect of particle-carrier fluid density ratio
on perforation-pack efficiency—percent
volume of perforation filled with gravel.
Efficient packing may be achieved with a
density ratio between 1.05 and 1.8. This
range may be designed using low-density
ISOPAC particles. ISOPAC particles have a
polymer coating with a low-density
ceramic core. Conventional gravel pro-
vides a ratio of about 2.4.
49
 Treatment A Treatment B
Downhole hardware
Crossover Sump packer Crossover Sump packer

Gravel deposition
1.00
Normalized radius

0.50
0
−0.50
−1.00
8427 8460 8493 8526 8559 8592 8625 8658 8427 8460 8493 8526 8559 8592 8625 8658
Measured depth, ft Measured depth, ft
Time to pack, min Time to pack, min

11.67 13.27 14.26 16.61 20.35 23.22

15.26 16.25 17.24 26.09 28.96 31.83

Final gravel concentration

Normalized radius

1.00
0.50
0
−0.50
−1.00
8427 8460 8493 8526 8559 8592 8625 8658 8427 8460 8493 8526 8559 8592 8625 8658

Measured depth, ft Measured depth, ft

Gravel concentration, %

0-6 6 -12 12 - 24

24 - 36 36 - 48 Packed
Final pack efficiency
1.00
Efficiency, %

0.50
0 Annular Packing Perforation
−0.50 packing
−1.00
8427 8460 8493 8526 8559 8592 8625 8658 8427 8460 8493 8526 8559 8592 8625 8658
Measured depth, ft Measured depth, ft

nComparing conventional (treatment A) and ISOPAC particle (treatment B) placement. To aid the design of gravel-pack treatments, Dow-
ell Schlumberger has developed PacCADE computer-aided design and evaluation software that can simulate gravel-packing opera-
tions. Plots of gravel deposition time to pack, final gravel concentration and final pack efficiency—all versus depth—may be used to
compare proposed gravel-pack treatment designs. In treatment A using conventional gravel, the lowermost perforations have not been
completely packed. In treatment B using lightweight ISOPAC particles in a prepack, good perforation packing efficiency has been
maintained for the whole interval.

50 Oilfield Review
has been found to be common using con-
ventional gravel. However, long-interval
gravel packs using ISOPAC particles have
easily exceeded these figures. For example,
in the Norwegian North Sea, a 400 ft [122
m] interval was packed with an efficiency of
0.64 ft3/ft.
While gravel and placement technique
are being selected, the carrier fluid must
also be chosen. In some cases, plain water
is used. In others, additives are used to
increase carrier-fluid viscosity. High-viscos-
ity fluids are commonly water-base,
although oil-base fluids are used for
severely water-sensitive formations. Water-
base fluids are gelled with familiar stimula-
tion chemicals like hydroxyethyl cellulose
(HEC) or xanthan polymer. To reduce the
concentration of nonhydrated polymer that
may damage the formation, fluids gelled
with these polymers are often sheared using
a pump and filtered prior to blending with
the gravel.
Breaker is added to reduce fluid viscosity
once the job is complete and therefore min-
imize formation damage.19 HEC is normally
the polymer of choice because it has low
residue after breaking and does not build a
filter cake on the formation, minimizing per-
meability damage.
A radically different type of gelling agent,
developed by Dowell Schlumberger, uses
PERMPAC viscoelastic surfactant-based car-
rier fluid. This fluid forms rod-shaped
micelles that have a high viscosity in low-
concentration aqueous solution. It shows
high rates of leakoff into the formation, and
has good suspending capabilities compared
to conventional polymers. Unlike HEC,
PERMPAC fluids do not require a breaker
because they are thinned by temperature
and shear, and by crude oil or organic sol-
vents, all of which tend to increase as the
fluid penetrates deeper into the formation
(above, right ).
To improve perforation packing, both
conventional and high-density circulating
gravel packs may be preceded by
prepacks—where the perforations are filled
with gravel either before the screen has
been run in hole or as a separate operation
prior to packing the casing-screen annulus.
Perforations can be prepacked effectively
October 1992
PERMPAC fluid in brine environment PERMPAC fluid in oil environment
+ + +
+ + Water + + + +
+ +
+ +
Hydrocarbon + + + - -
core + + Activator - + +
+
+ + - + -
+ + + ++
+ - + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ +
+ + + + + +- Oil
+ + ++ + + +
+ + - + + +
+ + - + + + + +
+ + + + +
- + + + + +
+ + + +
+ + +
+ + + + -
+
+ + + + + +
+ + + -+
+ +
+
Surfactant
Hydrophilic + Hydrophobic
160 nLeakoff tests (left) for different carrier
Volume of fluid through core, ml
PERMPAC fluid fluids. The leakoff for three fluids—
2.5% by volume containing respectively the PERMPAC
120 system, hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC)
and xanthan polymer, in concentra-
tions that give equivalent viscos-
80
ity—were tested on Berea sandstone
cores with nominal air permeabilities
HEC 40 lbm/1000 gal of 300 millidarcies. The PERMPAC
fluid shows an enhanced leakoff,
40
Xanthan polymer because contact with oil causes the
36 lbm/1000 gal fluid’s micelles to break up (above).
0
Final leakoff rate becomes constant
0 10 20 30 40 as contact with oil is reduced.
Time, min
using either water or gelled fluid provided results when the higher viscosity carrier
fluid loss into the formation is finite.20 fluid leaks off into the formation. Diversion
Prepacking prior to running the screen, as ensures that more perforations are acidized
outlined in the Forth field example (see and then prepacked than would normally
“Gravel Packing Forth Field Exploration be the case.21
Wells,” page 48 ), is used to limit the pene- Sometimes acidization is carried out as a
tration of LCM into the perforation tunnels separate stage, prior to the gravel pack. The
during tripping. Determining the prepack primary aim of this treatment is to increase
volume is important. Too little gravel will the rate at which the carrier fluid will leak
result in the LCM penetrating unpacked per- off during the subsequent gravel pack,
forations. Too much may necessitate a trip although the acid also stimulates the well.
to clean out the excess in the sump and When stimulation is required that matrix
covering perforations. Volume depends on a treatments cannot deliver, one alternative is
number of factors, such as the competence to create short, wide fractures by carrying
of the formation, the quality of the cement out a tip-screenout fracturing treatment fol-
job, the design and size of the perforation lowed by a circulating gravel pack (see
charges, the extent of cleanup flow after “Rewriting the Rules for High-Permeability
perforation and the formation permeability. Stimulation,” page 18).
Prepacking with the screen in place is car-
ried out with the service tool in the squeeze 19. Gulbis J, Hawkins G, King M, Pulsinelli R, Brown E
position before the annular pack is circu- and Elphick J: “Taking the Breaks Off Proppant-Pack
Conductivity,” Oilfield Review 3, no. 1 (January
lated into place. The process takes less time 1991): 18-26.
than the alternative prescreen technique. 20. Penberthy WL Jr and Echols EE: “Gravel Placement
The prepack may be pumped as several in Wells,” paper SPE 22793, presented at the 66th
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
stages of gravel slurry interspersed with Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
stages of acid to clean up damage around 21. Matherne BB and Hall BE: “A Field Evaluation of a
the perforations. The gravel slurry not only Gravel-Diverted Acid Stimulation Prior to Gravel
prepacks the perforations but also acts as a Packing,” paper SPE 19741, presented at the 64th
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
diverter, probably because of pressure that San Antonio, Texas, USA, October 8-11, 1989.
51
Evaluating the Gravel Pack
With the gravel pack in place, there are two
elements to be evaluated: that gravel has
been packed everywhere it was supposed to
go, and that the well is producing hydrocar-
bons satisfactorily.
Since voids in the pack may lead to early
completion failure, postpack evaluation is
essential to detect incomplete fill and allow
repairs to be undertaken. Prior to place-
ment, gravel may be coated with radioac-
tive isotopes and the pack assessed using
gamma ray logging. However, the coating is
usually inconsistent and may wash off, mak-
ing quantitative analysis unreliable.
One way to improve the accuracy of such
logs is to use ISOPAC particles that have
been manufactured with isotope encapsu-
lated within each particle’s resistant shell.
This also offers increased subtlety through
use of multiple isotopes. The perforations
may be prepacked using particles contain-
ing scandium followed by particles contain-
ing iridium. Packing placement efficiency
can be monitored, using a multiple-isotope,
gamma spectroscopy tracer log (right ).
Alternatively, the effectiveness of fill may
be gauged using nuclear density logging to
estimate the density of material in the annu-
lus. However, not all changes in density are
related to changes in gravel-pack quality—
changes in the screen, pipe base, casing,
tubing and formation sand all affect the
reading. A base log run prior to the gravel
packing can iron out these discrepancies
(next page, left). In addition, a reference
screen may be set below the sump packer to
register zero pack response.22
Density measurement is not appropriate
when the completion fluid has a high den-
sity (more than 14 lbm/gal) or where low-
density particles have been employed. In
these cases, neutron activation logging can
22. Gilchrist JM and Gilchrist AL: “A Review of Gravel
Packing in the Forth Field,” paper SPE 23128, pre-
sented at the Offshore Europe Conference,
Aberdeen, Scotland, September 3-6, 1991.
23. Watson JT, Carpenter WW, Carroll JF and Smith BC:
“Gravel Pack Field Examples of a New Pulsed Neu-
tron Activation Logging Technique,” paper OTC
6464, presented at the 22nd Annual Offshore Tech-
nology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, May 7-
10, 1990.
24. “Jim Carroll: The Gulf Coast WID Kid,” The Techni-
cal Review 35, no. 2, (April 1987): 19-26.
25. Deruyck B, Ehlig-Economides C and Joseph J: “Test-
ing Design and Analysis,” Oilfield Review 4, no. 2
(April 1992): 28-45.
26. Unneland and Waage, reference 9.
52
be used. The neutron activation logging near-detector curve, toward decreasing count
technique uses a pulsed-neutron logging rate (next page, top right ).
tool modified to allow a gamma ray device Once voids in the pack are identified, a
to be mounted below it. The pack is bom- wireline shaking device attached to the
barded with fast neutrons. Silicon and alu- evaluation tools may be used to break up
minum in the gravel are activated and bridges and allow the pack to settle. The
gamma rays are emitted as the elements shakes create local turbulence in the fluid
return to their natural stable state. The num- which agitates the bridged gravel until it set-
ber of gamma rays is proportional to the tles into the void.24
amount of silicon and aluminum activated, The other main strategy for testing gravel
and pack quality may be inferred. 23 packs centers on assessing performance
In openhole packs, a compensated neutron using well tests and production logging. In
log can be used to detect hydrogen-rich flu- assessing gravel pack performance a num-
ids in the gravel-pack pore space, making it ber of diagnostics are available, including
sensitive to changes in pack porosity. The skin factor (which measures formation dam-
tool’s near and far detectors are used to partly age as a function of its permeability) and
eliminate the effects of hole conditions. The multirate flow tests.25
curves of the two detectors are scaled to Differentiating between the effects of the
overlay in areas of low porosity—good pack. formation and the gravel pack, often
Areas of high porosity—poor pack—are indi- requires a DST prior to packing. With these
cated by a shift of the curves, especially the data it is possible to identify the pressure
Multiple Isotope Log
nIsotope logging of
Depth, ft
Cumulative Completion schematic Cumulative Scandium Iridium a prepack using
ISOPAC particles
containing scan-
dium and iridium.
The initial slurry
5550
with particles con-
taining scandium
tracer packed the
three high-perme-
ability zones. Then a
slurry with particles
incorporating iridium
was pumped that
filled in the zone at
5630 ft and diverted
5600 to the remainder of
the perforated inter-
val. The cumulative
tracks—the superpo-
sition of scandium
and iridium— indi-
cate 100% perfora-
5630 tion packing over
the entire interval.
5650
5700
High-permeability zones
Oilfield Review
drop caused by the gravel pack. Production Compensated Neutron Log
logging may be used to evaluate each layer Far detector
in the formation assessing the flow profile
across the interval.26 Gravel-pack perfor- Gamma ray 75 Near detector 300 Pack %
mance versus time is another indication of 25 API 125 26.667 CPS 3877 0 100
performance. Pressure drop across the pack
is one measure. An increase could indicate

9-5/8 in. casing

that fines like kaolinite have migrated into
the pack and around the gravel or that 4300

unpacked perforations have collapsed.

In the past, the successful accomplish-
ment of a gravel-packing operation has
often been the main criterion used to judge
its success. This judgement often fails to
consider that the treatment may have dam-

7-3/4 in. liner

aged the well. Today, more attention is 4400
being paid to performance, and completion
engineers are increasingly seeking ways of
stopping formation sand without seriously
restricting productivity. —CF

4500
Gamma ray before Top of partial sand pack
Depth, ft

Gamma ray after

2000 CPS 4000

Screen
4600

5700

Top of sand
4700

nCompensated neutron log of a gravel pack using near and far detectors. The near
detector is affected mostly by the screen and wellbore fluids. The far detector is affected
After gravel pack run by the gravel pack, the casing, and in some cases the formation and its fluids.
Base run

Top of screen

5800

nNuclear density logging of a gravel pack.

Running a base log prior to gravel packing
allows the density effects of the bottomhole
assembly to be taken into consideration
and the gravel pack to be evaluated.

October 1992 53
 COMPLETION/STIMULATION

Choosing a Perforation Strategy

Charlie Cosad
Schlumberger Testing Services
Aberdeen, Scotland

The ultimate success of the

well—its productivity and life

expectancy—rests on making the

best possible connection between

the wellbore and formation. This

update reports on what we know

today about selecting a perfora-

tion strategy best suited to the

reservoir and the completion.

For their help in preparation of this article, thanks to
Larry Behrmann, Klaus Huber, Tom Lebsack and Tony
Vovers, Schlumberger Perforating Center, Rosharon,
Texas, USA; Bill Bell, Huntsville, Texas, USA; Dick Ellis,
Pennzoil, Houston, Texas, USA; George King, Amoco
Research, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA; Randy Saucier, Man-
deville, Louisiana, USA; and Stephan Turnipseed, TriTech
Services, Montgomery, Alabama, USA.
In this article, Enerjet, HEGS (High-Efficiency Gun Sys-
tem), HSD (High Shot Density gun system), S.A.F.E.
(Slapper-Actuated Firing Equipment), Selectric, SPAN
(Schlumberger Perforating Analysis), Pivot Gun, IMPACT
(Integrated Mechanical Properties Analysis & Characteri-
zation of Near-Wellbore Heterogeneity), MSRT (Multi-
Sensor Recorder/Transmitter) and LINC (Latched Induc-
tive Coupling) are marks of Schlumberger.
1. Gravel is rounded particles of diameter typically
greater than 2 mm [0.8 in.].
The fate of a well hinges on years of explo-
ration, months of well planning and weeks
of drilling. But it ultimately depends on per-
forming the optimal completion, which
begins with the millisecond of perforation
(above ). Profitability is strongly influenced
by this critical link between the reservoir
and wellbore.
Perforations form conduits into the reser-
voir that not only allow hydrocarbon recov-
ery, but influence it. Each of the three main
types of completions—natural, stimulated
and sand control—has different perforating
requirements. In the natural completion (in
which perforating is followed directly by
production) many deep shots are most effec-
tive. In stimulated completions—hydraulic
fracturing and matrix acidizing—a small
angle between shots is critical to effectively
create hydraulic fractures and link perfora-
tions with new pathways in the reservoir.
And in gravel packing, many large-diameter
perforations effectively filled with gravel1
are used to keep the typically unconsoli-
dated formation from producing sand and
creating damage that would result in large
pressure drops during production.
To meet the broad requirements of perfo-
rating, there many perforating guns and gun
conveyance systems. Optimizing perforating
requires selection of hardware best suited to
the job. A good place to start, therefore, is
with the basics of perforating hardware.
The Language of Perforating
There was a time when describing the perfo-
ration operation defined the perforator: run-
ning through-tubing guns, shooting casing
guns or tubing-conveyed perforating (TCP)
(next page). Not so with the present variety
of completion methods and gun systems.

54 Oilfield Review
a
a
a Casing
gun
Casing

Through-casing perforation
Tubing
nUp in smoke. Sur-
face detonation of a
standard 4-in. gun,
staged during the
making of a safety
training video.
Destruction of the
mannequin at left,
positioned about 1
foot [30 cm] from
the end of the gun,
shows the poten-
tially devastating
effect of a surface
detonation, empha-
sizing that safety
forms the essential
foundation for per-
foration operations.

Packer

Through-
tubing gun

Through-tubing perforation
Workstring

Guns
Firing
head
Packer

Flow entry
ports

Safety spacer

Tubing-conveyed perforation

nThree conveyance methods for perforating guns: through-casing and through-tubing, and tubing-conveyed systems.
The through-tubing gun shown is held against the casing magnetically. The others hang free.

October 1992 55
 The two broad categories of guns are only through tubing. They are used
exposed and hollow carrier guns (bottom ). Damaged zone
mainly in hostile environments or where
These can be used in two types of perforat- debris is unacceptable.
ing operations: through-tubing, in which •Port plug guns, in which charges shoot
guns are run through a production or test through replaceable plugs in a reusable
string into larger diameter casing; and carrier. These are wireline conveyed
through-casing, in which guns are larger mainly for deep penetration and where 4
diameter and run directly into casing. Perforation shot-per-foot (spf) density is acceptable.
Exposed guns are run on wireline and diameter •High shot density guns, which are
have individual shaped charges sealed in designed for each casing size to optimize
capsules and mounted on a strip, in a tube Perforation shot density, hole size, penetration and
or along wires. The detonator and detonat- varies with phasing. The majority of sand control
shot
ing cord are exposed to borehole fluids. density completions use high shot density guns
Phase Crushed
These guns are used exclusively through angle zone loaded with charges designed to provide
tubing and leave debris after firing. They large entrance holes. All TCP is performed
include two designs, “expendable,” (charges with high shot density guns.
and mounting assembly become debris) and •The HEGS High-Efficiency Gun System,
“semiexpendable” (mounting is recovered). which is a wireline-conveyed alternative
For a given diameter, exposed guns carry a to port plug guns, with longer carriers that
larger, deeper penetrating charge than a hol- are faster to load and run. The HEGS sys-
low carrier gun. But exposed gun outer tem is available in 31/8- in. and 4-in. outer
Perforation
diameter is generally not larger than about penetration diameter. It is rated to 210°F [99°C] and
21/2 in. [6 cm], because above this size, the 4000 psi, making it useful in many shal-
casing, or hollow carrier design, becomes low wells. A big hole charge is available
more practical, allowing use of larger nMajor geometrical parameters that for the 4-in. size.
charges, optimal angle between determine flow efficiency in a perforated To determine the type of perforation and
completion. Four key factors are shot
shots—called phasing 2 —and increased density, phase angle, perforation penetra- gun system best suited to the well, a practi-
number of shots per linear foot—called shot tion into the formation and perforation cal first step is to consider the general inter-
density (above, right ). diameter. Productivity of a well also action of the perforation and reservoir. A
Hollow carrier guns have shaped charges depends on the size of the crushed zone, second step is to look at how perforation
positioned inside pressure-tight steel tubes. whether the perforation extends beyond designs vary for each of the three main
the damaged zone and how effectively
This design is available for most tubing and the crushed zone and charge debris are types of completions: natural, stimulated
casing sizes. It is used through tubing when removed from the tunnel. and sand control.
debris is unacceptable and in hostile condi-
tions that preclude exposed guns. There are Application
four main types of hollow carrier guns: Gun
System Wireline Wireline Tubing
•Scallop guns, so-called because charges through-tubing through- casing conveyed
shoot through dished out areas in the car-
rier, which is recovered and junked. Scal- Strip x
Exposed
lop guns are wireline-conveyed and shot gun Pivot x
Scallop x
2. The nomenclature of phasing may be a source of con-
Port plug x
fusion. A 60° phasing means one shot every 60°
azimuthally; a 180° phasing means one shot every Hollow High
180°. Phasing of 0° has all shots in one line, meaning carrier gun x x
efficiency
the angle between shots is actually 360°. Speaking of
“reduced phasing” or “reduced phase angle” means High shot
the angle between shots is smaller. A 45° phasing is x x x
density
therefore “reduced” compared to a 90° phasing.

nA taxonomy of perforating guns and systems.

56 Oilfield Review
 A Perforation Glossary

Big hole charge: A shaped charge that gives prior-

ity to entrance hole over depth of penetration, used
exclusively in sand control completions. A “big
hole” has an entrance diameter of 0.5 to 1.2 in. [13
to 30 mm], usually about twice that of a deep pene-
trator charge of similar size. Conventional deep
penetrators have an entrance hole diameter of 0.3
to 0.5 in. [8 to 13 mm].
Booster: A secondary explosive attached to the end
of the detonating cord, used to assure passage of
initiation between the detonator and detonating

a
cord or between detonating cords.
Carrier: In hollow carrier guns, a steel tube that
carries a loading tube and protects it from the well-
bore environment. The loading tube secures and
aligns the detonating cord and shaped charges. The
detonator is housed in a firing head attached to the
carrier.
Completion: Work required to make a well ready to
produce oil or gas. It generally includes—not nec-
essarily in this order—running and cementing cas-
ing, perforating, stimulating the well, running tub-
ing and installing control and flow valves. In a
permanent completion, the well is not killed after
perforating underbalance and is ready for immedi-
ate production. In TCP, the guns remain downhole
after firing. In a temporary completion, the well is
killed after perforating and the workstring retrieved
before installing the permanent completion.
Deep penetrating charge: A charge design that
gives priority to penetration depth instead of
entrance hole diameter.
Detonating cord: A secondary explosive contained
in a protective flexible outer sheath. The detonator
is connected to the detonating cord, which trans-
mits the detonation to each shaped charge. It may
also pass detonation along to another gun via a
booster.

October 1992
Detonator: A primary explosive that initiates the
detonating cord. Detonators can be fired electrically
or by impact.
Drillstem test (DST): A temporary completion in
which a downhole shut-in valve, controlled from
surface, is incorporated in the workstring, usually
with a retrievable packer. The well can then be
flowed in a test program, either recording data in
downhole memory or conveying them to surface in
real time to analyze reservoir properties such as
permeability and reservoir boundaries.
Explosive: There are two types used in well perfo-
rating, primary and secondary explosives. The main
difference is in their sensitivity. A primary explo-
sive, used in the detonator, detonates from heat
(applied by electric power) or impact (from a drop
bar or a pressure-driven firing pin). A secondary
explosive, used in detonating cord, shaped charges
and boosters, is detonated only by another detona-
tion, from either a primary explosive or electrically
generated shock, such as from the S.A.F.E. system.
Limited entry perforating: Varying the number of
perforations in each layer, depending on layer
thickness and stress state, to achieve the desired
fracture geometry. Fewer perforations in the layer
taking the most fluid restrict flow and divert it into
other layers.
Primer: A small amount of higher sensitivity sec-
ondary explosive at the base of the shaped charge,
which ensures correct initiation of the charge by
the detonating cord.
Proppant: Material pumped into a hydraulic frac-
ture to prevent closure and provide a conduit for
production once pressure is released. The most
common proppant is sand. High-strength prop-
pants, like sintered bauxite and zirconium oxide
particles, are used where fracture closure stress
would crush sand.
Shaped charge: A precisely engineered cone of
pressed metal powder, or drawn solid metal, sur-
rounded by a secondary explosive and case, and
initiated by detonating cord. Detonation collapses
the cone into a jet that penetrates the completion
and formation (right ).
Strip gun: An expendable gun in which individual
charges in capsules are secured and aligned along
a strip of metal.
Primer

a
Detonating
cord
Case Explosive
Liner
0 µsec

4 µsec

9.4 µsec

16.6 µsec

nProgression of shaped-charge detonation. The

schematic at 0 µsec shows the charge components.
The volume of explosive is greatest at the apex of the
liner and least near its open end. This means that as
the detonation front advances, it activates less explo-
sive, resulting in a lower collapse speed near the
liner base. The subsequent drawings show the case
deforming as the detonation front advances, thrust-
ing the liner into a jet along the shaped-charge axis.
The fully formed jet, at 16.6 µsec, is moving at about
21,300 feet/sec [6500 m/sec].

57
Perforation-Reservoir Interactions— Get-
ting Started
Flow efficiency of a perforated completion
and stimulation success are determined
mainly by how well the perforation program
takes advantage of the reservoir properties.
The program includes determination of two
main factors:
•The proper differential between reservoir
and wellbore pressure (The usual prefer-
ence is for underbalance, meaning well-
bore pressure is less than reservoir
pressure at time of perforating).
•Gun selection, which determines penetra-
tion tunnel length, shot phasing, shot den-
sity and perforation entrance hole diame-
ter. The relative importance of the
different components of shot geometry
varies with the completion type (below ).
The main reservoir property that affects flow
efficiency is permeability anisotropy from
whatever cause—in sandstone, typically
from alignment of grains related to their
deposition; in carbonates, typically from
fractures or stylolites.3 Shale laminations,
natural fractures and wellbore damage,
which can cause permeability anisotropy,
are considered separately because they are
so common. In most formations, vertical
permeability is lower than horizontal. In all
these cases, productivity is improved by use
of guns with high shot densities.
Natural fractures are common in many
reservoirs and may provide high effective
permeability even when matrix permeability
is low. However, productivity of perforated
completions in fractured reservoirs requires
good hydraulic communication between
the perforations and fracture network. To
maximize the chances of intersecting a frac-
ture, penetration length is the highest prior-
ity, with phase angle second. Shot density is
less important because fractures form planes
and increasing density does not increase
contact with a fracture system. In fractured
formations, a popular gun configuration
uses 60° phasing with 5 spf. A Schlumber-
ger version of this gun has a large charge
that penetrates 30 in. [76 cm] into the stan-
dard API test target.4
An important geometric consideration of
a perforation is how deeply it penetrates—
whether it reaches beyond the zone dam-
aged during drilling or connects with exist-
ing fractures. The penetration of various
shaped charges is documented in surface
tests and in tests under stress with API targets.
Penetration in surface tests is different than
under stress in the well.5 Unconfined com-
pressive strength of test targets is a minimum
of 3300 psi, representing only low-strength
reservoir rock (reservoir rock strength ranges
from 0 to 25,000 psi). To estimate depth of
penetration into a rock of arbitrary strength
under a given stress, data measured at
unstressed surface conditions have to be
transformed. Because rock penetration data
exist for only a few combinations of charges,
rock strengths and stresses, a semiempirical
approach is used that combines experimental
data with penetration theory.6
Schlumberger calculates penetration
change caused by formation stress using
experimental data for three generic charge
designs after first calculating the change due
to formation strength at zero stress. These
data provide transforms implemented in the
SPAN Schlumberger Perforating Analysis
program. The SPAN program consists of two
modules: penetration length calculation and
productivity calculation. In the penetration

Completion Type nRelative impor- 3. Stylolites, common in carbonates, function like shale
tance of four main layers in sandstones, inhibiting vertical migration of
Perforation hydrocarbons. They are interlocking wave- or tooth-
Consolidated Unconsolidated geometrical factors
Geometry like seams that often parallel bedding, and contain
in the three com-
Natural Stimulated Sand Control concentrations of insoluble rock constituents, such as
pletion types, clay and iron oxides. They are thought to be caused
Shot where 1 is greatest by pressure solution, a process that increases contact
1 or 2 2 2 and 4 is least. The
density area between grains and reduces pore space.
optimum perfora- 4. The American Petroleum Institute (API) publishes rec-
Perforation 3 or 4 3 1 tion design estab- ommendations for testing shaped charges in a docu-
diameter lishes the proper ment, API RP-43. Section 1 specifies the length and
tradeoff of these entrance hole diameter produced by a gun system
Perforation 3 or 4 1 3 (charges and carrier) in a steel and concrete target.
factors. The lower
phasing Section 2 gives this information for single shots into a
part of the figure
Perforation shows common stressed Berea sandstone target. As of this writing, the
1 or 2 4 4 considerations for
availability of target material for Section 2 is under
length review by the API.
perforating natural
5. Halleck PM, Saucier RJ, Behrmann LA and Ahrens TJ:
completions. When “Reduction of Jet Perforator Penetration in Rock
natural fractures Under Stress,” paper SPE 18242, presented at the 63rd
are present, phas- SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
ing becomes more Houston, Texas, USA, October 2-5, 1988.
Anisotropy important than
Perforation Isotropic Natural Wellbore 6. Behrmann LA and Halleck PM: “Effect of Concrete
density to improve and Berea Strengths on Perforator Performance and
Geometry Permeability Of Any Laminar Fractures Damage
Cause Shale communication Resulting Impact on the New API RP-43,” paper SPE
between fractures 18242, presented at the 63rd SPE Annual Technical
Shot density 2 1 1 3 2 and perforations. Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA,
October 2-5, 1988.
Perforation Halleck PM and Behrmann LA: “Penetration of
4 3 4 4 4
diameter Shaped Charges in Stressed Rock,” in Hustrulid WA
and Johnson GA (eds.): Rock Mechanics Contribu-
Perforation tions and Challenges: Proceedings of the 31st US
3 4 3 2 3
phasing Symposium. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A.A.
Balkema (1990): 629-636.
Perforation 7. Karakas M and Tariq S: “Semianalytical Productivity
1 2 2 1 1
length Models for Perforated Completions,” paper SPE
18271, presented at the 63rd SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA,
October 2-5, 1988.
Economides MJ and Nolte KG (eds): Reservoir Stimu-
lation, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA:
Prentice Hall (1989): 1-17.
8. Pucknell JK and Behrmann LA: “An Investigation of
the Damaged Zone Created by Perforating,” paper
SPE 22811, presented at the 66th SPE Annual Techni-
cal Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA,
58 October 6-9, 1991.
a
Productivity ratio 1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
0 3
A

tivity of the perforated completion.

6

Another influence on flow efficiency is

formation damage, usually considered in
the context of skin, an index of flow effi-
ciency related to properties of the reservoir
and completion. Skin comprises a variety of
influences: flow convergence, wellbore
damage, perforation damage, partial pene-
tration (perforation of less than the total
height of the reservoir) and the angle
between the perforation and bedding plane.
The goal is to design perforations that mini-
mize skin and therefore maximize flow effi-
ciency (top ).
Formation damage is caused by invasion
of mud filtrate and cement fluid loss into the
formation, creating a zone of lower effective
permeability around the wellbore (above,
right ). Extending the perforation beyond the
damaged zone may reduce this skin signifi-
cantly, enhancing productivity.7 But even for
perforations that do penetrate farther, the
wellbore damage zone reduces the effective
tunnel length.
During perforating, a “crushed zone” of
reduced permeability is created around the
perforation. In laboratory experiments, the
thickness and permeability damage of the

October 1992
90° 4 spf

0° 4 spf

9
Perforation length, in.
12 15

Increasing pressure
a
0.7

0.6

0.5
Reservoir
pressure

Wellbore
pressure

nRelationship of perforation phasing and depth to productivity (left) and to wellbore skin (right). Curves
on the left are for undamaged conditions. Damage would reduce their absolute values, but they would
maintain the same position relative to each other. For 0° phasing perforation, skin is higher at the
wellbore because flow follows a less direct path to the perforation than for the 90° phasing case.
Perforations with lower skin distribute the pressure drop over a greater distance from the wellbore,
yielding a higher production rate for a given wellbore pressure. The left figure shows the increase in
productivity with perforation length. In the theoretical case of no damage, a 9-in. [23-cm] perforation
at 0° phasing has the same productivity as a 3-in. [8-cm] perforation of 90° phasing.

module, perforation length and diameter

estimates are calculated under downhole
conditions for any combination of gun,
charge and casing size. It can also calculate
penetration in multiple casing strings. These
parameters are used in the productivity
module to evaluate the anticipated produc-
Productivity ratio

1.0

0.9

0.8

0
Damaged

perforation

1 mm
6
zone

Distance from wellbore

Open hole

Effect for 9-in.

9 12
Damaged zone thickness, in.
A

No crushed zone
k cz /k=1
k dz /k=0.4

15
Wellbore

nPhotomicrographs of rock thin sections, showing the effect of perforation. The left
Increasing skin

Increasing productivity
nHow a damaged zone near a perforated
completion affects productivity, for a 9-in.
perforation with 0° phasing and 4 shots
per foot. The influence of lowered
effective permeability in the damaged
zone can be combated by perforations
that extend into the virgin formation. In
this example, there is no crushed zone, so
crushed zone permeability, kcz, equals
virgin formation permeability, k. But
permeability of the damaged zone, kdz, is
60% lower than that of the virgin zone.

image is from rock near the perforation tunnel, showing microfracturing. The right thin
section is undamaged rock. (From Pucknell and Behrmann, reference 8.)

crushed zone are influenced by all vari-

ables to varying degrees: the type of shaped
charge, formation type and stress, underbal-
ance and cleanup conditions. Pucknell and
Behrmann found that permeability near the
perforation is reduced because microfrac-
turing replaces larger pores with smaller
ones (above). The current rule of thumb is
to assume a crushed zone 1/2 in. [13 mm]
thick with permeability reduced by 80% to
90%. Recent experimental data, however,
cast some doubt on this assumption, with
crushed zone thickness a function of charge
size, pore fluid type, and the preservation of
permeability when perforating underbal-
ance.8

59
The Natural Completion—Perf and
Produce
The natural completion is often defined as
that in which little or no stimulation is
required for production. This approach is
usually chosen for reservoirs that are less
prone to damage, have good transmissibil-
ity, and are mechanically stable.
Of primary importance in selecting the
perforating gun are its depth of penetration
and effective shot density (see “Natural
Completion,” next page). Depth is important
because the deeper the perforation, the
greater the effective wellbore radius; also
flow is less likely to be influenced by forma-
tion damaged during drilling. In the context
of well productivity, a deep penetrator
shoots to a depth 1.5 times that of the well-
bore damage.
Shot density also ranks high because
more holes mean more places for hydrocar-
bon to enter the wellbore and a greater like-
lihood that perforations will intersect pro-
ductive intervals of an anisotropic reservoir.
After shot density and depth of penetration,
aa
Gun in
casing
Phasing from top

6
45

1
90

7
3

nThree views of perforating with a

6

135°/45° phased gun: the gun fired in

2

casing, phasing viewed from the top, and

with the perforated casing unrolled and
laid flat. The 135°/45° designation means
the angle between successive shots is
135°, resulting in an overall phasing of
45°. There is 1 vertical inch [2.5 cm]
between shots, making 12 shots per foot.
In the natural completion, this phasing
provides hydrocarbons with the most
direct path to the wellbore.

60
1

5
4

Casing unrolled (7 in.)

45°

135 180 225 270 315 360

7
2

5
8

8
3

3
135°

6
a
most important is phasing because, when
properly chosen, it provides hydrocarbons
with the most direct path to the wellbore
(below, left ). Under typical flow conditions,
perforation diameter does not adversely
affect flow once it exceeds 0.25 in. [6 mm],
which today is provided by nearly all guns
used in natural completions.
A key consideration in perforation design
of natural completions is the selection of
overbalance versus underbalance perforat-
ing. Overbalance means the pressure of
wellbore fluids exceeds reservoir pressure at
the time of perforating. Under this condi-
tion, wellbore fluids immediately invade the
perforation. For this reason, clean fluids
without solids are preferred to prevent plug-
ging of perforations. Cleanup can occur
only when production begins.
Increasingly, wells that have sufficient
reservoir pressure to flow to surface unas-
sisted are completed in underbalance con-
ditions. Underbalance is the trend because
of wider recognition that it provides cleaner
perforations—therefore better produc-

Overbalanced perforating before flowing

Damaged

Cement

Casing
zone

Overbalanced perforating after flowing

Ideal underbalanced perforating

tion—and because of greater availability of
gun systems that allow it. Underbalance
perforating can provide large gains in reser-
voir productivity. The question is, how
much underbalance is appropriate? Exces-
sive underbalance risks mechanical damage
to the completion or test string by collapsed
casing or a packer that becomes damaged,
stuck or unseated. It can also encourage
migration of fines within the reservoir,
reducing its permeability. Insufficient under-
balance, however, doesn’t effectively clean
the perforations. Production may therefore
be hindered, mainly by lack of removal of
the crushed zone and, secondarily, by lack
of removal of debris. The crushed zone is
the damaged rock in and around the perfo-
ration tunnel; debris is mainly the liner
material of the spent shaped charge, plus
fragments of cement and rock (below ).
The optimal underbalance, which
removes both debris and the crushed zone
and does not damage the formation, accom-
plishes virtually all cleanup during the por-
tion of initial production that is dominated

Virgin formation
Charge
debris

Crushed (low-permeability)
zone still exists

Part of low-permeability
zone still exists

Perforation partially plugged

with charge debris

Crushed zone and charge

debris expelled by surge
immediately after perforating
nThree idealized
conditions in a
perforation tunnel:
overbalance perfo-
ration before flow-
ing, overbalance
perforation after
flowing and
underbalance per-
foration. The top
figure indicates
that without
cleanup, the perfo-
ration tunnel is
plugged by
crushed rock and
charge debris. In
the second case,
flow has removed
most charge
debris, but some of
the low-permeabil-
ity crushed zone
created by the jet
remains. In the
third figure, suffi-
cient underbal-
ance during perfo-
rating removed
damage—both
charge debris and
crushed rock.

Oilfield Review
 Natural Completion
Perforation Technique Selection

Does improvement in well cleanup from underbalance perforating justify added operational complexity?

Yes No

Perforate underbalance. Perforate overbalance with high shot density or casing guns.

•Is there sufficient rathole for dropping guns, Does completion benefit from high shot density or
if subsequent remedial operations are required? reduced phase angle?
and
Yes No
Do any of the following apply?
•Shot density > 6 shots per foot Casing guns
Select correct
•Deviation ≥ 60° diameter high shot (wireline conveyed only)
•Simultaneous perforation needed for a single, density gun
long zone or multiple zones, exceeding what compatible with
can be perforated in one wireline run downhole
restrictions; select Is the well ≤ 4000 psi, < 210°F [99°C]?
•Two or fewer zones to be shot selectively phasing and shot
for a multizone test. density. Yes No

HEGS Port plug guns

(wireline
conveyed only)
Yes
No

TCP (high shot density guns) Through-tubing guns

(wireline conveyed)

Production Test Drillstem test Select TCP firing •Will gun or charge debris be a problem
system and for downhole equipment?
accessories to or
integrate with •Are more than two zones to be
DST string. perforated selectively?

Is the option of gun retrieval required? Yes No

or
Are guns with diameter less than the maximum Hollow carrier guns Exposed guns
allowed by casing size acceptable? (scallop or HSD guns,
depending on tubing
Yes No size)

Stab guns through Run guns below

permanent packer. production packer. Is deeper penetration important?
Select guns, firing Select guns, firing or
system and TCP system and TCP Is selectivity not required?
hardware. hardware.
(Tubing conveyed) Yes No

Pivot Gun Conventional

Do packer/gun assembly weight and well (perforates strip guns
maximum of 15 feet
deviation allow setting by wireline?
[5 m] per run)
Yes No

Run guns and packer Run guns and packer

on wireline. on tubing.
Boxes in red outline denote final decision points.

October 1992 61
by surge of reservoir fluids into the perfora-
tions. Cleanup after this point is negligible
because hydrocarbon follows the already
cleaned paths of least resistance. During
production, pressure drop across damaged
areas is insufficient for further cleanup.
Recent experiments have shown that if a
suboptimal underbalance is used, some
cleanup will take place during production,
but productivity never reaches that achieved
with optimal underbalance.9
When well testing is planned, underbal-
ance perforating has become the standard,
particularly when a drillstem test (DST) is
included. Underbalance perforating is ide-
ally suited because a DST includes hard-
ware that allows establishing underbalance
and running high shot density guns. This
setup provides excellent well control and
often saves time because the perforating
guns are run below the test string. Pressure
measurements can be recorded either
downhole or in real time at surface, and are
available for decision-making during the
test. The MSRT MultiSensor Recorder/Trans-
mitter and LINC Latched Inductive Coupling
equipment allow real-time measurement
and surface readout of downhole pressure.
The main advantage of this system is the
added mechanical and safety reliability of
measuring pressure below the DST shut-in
valve. In addition, memorized data can be
read out at surface when LINC equipment is
run, eliminating the need for the cable in
the test string while the well is flowing.
From an operations viewpoint, underbal-
ance perforating by wireline-conveyed guns
causes a surge that lifts cable and guns. The
high flow rate or liquid slugs associated
with this surge can blow the guns and cable
up the well. A common limit on underbal-
ance when perforating via wireline is 700
psi, although this is often higher in tight
reservoirs, which are not capable of deliver-
ing a substantial surge.
The choice of underbalance may be
based on data collected since the early
1980s from laboratory and field studies and
from increasing use of underbalance com-
pletions (primarily tubing-conveyed perfo-
rating).10 More recently, computer programs
have been developed. The IMPACT Inte-
grated Mechanical Properties Analysis &
Characterization of Near-Wellbore Hetero-
geneity interpretation program computes a
value of safe underbalance based on the
mechanical properties of the formation esti- 0° phased ± 45° phased 60° phased
Enerjet Enerjet scallop gun
mated from sonic and density logs. Local

nA family of through-tubing, wireline-conveyed guns. From left, the 0° phased Enerjet

(a semiexpendable strip gun); the phased Enerjet, with two rows of charges at 90° (an
expendable strip gun); and the 60° phased scallop gun (a retrievable gun). Unlike the
Enerjet, the scallop gun has negligible debris and can be run in hostile environments.

62 Oilfield Review
 Run in Hole Deployed
Deployment
head
9 shots
per foot
1.69 in. 3.79 in.
nThe Pivot Gun system in the run-in and
deployed positions. Charge performance
in surface tests exceeds that of most cas-
ing guns—25-in. [64-cm] penetration and
0.33-in. [8-mm] entrance hole diameter in
an API RP-43 section 1 target (see footnote
4). Shot density is fixed at 4 shots/ft with
180° phasing. The Pivot Gun system gives
the deepest possible penetration when
perforating through tubing. The main
limitation is the maximum gun length of
10 feet [3 m]. It is rated to 330°F [165°C]
and 12,000 psi.
experience also helps guide the selection of
optimal underbalance.
Overbalance perforating still has a role,
however. Often significant are its speed for
short intervals and the availability of larger,
high shot density guns compared to those
for through-tubing underbalance perfora-
tion. The selection of overbalance versus
underbalance rests on weighting economic
versus production variables.
A long-recognized disadvantage of
through-tubing gun systems is their trade-off
between phasing and depth of penetra-
tion—either 0° phasing with good penetra-
tion, or improved phasing with less penetra-
tion because of smaller shaped charges
(previous page). A recent innovation that
addresses this problem is the Phased Enerjet
gun, which provides two rows of charges at
October 1992
90° phasing. A second is the Pivot Gun sys-
tem, which delivers casing gun performance
with 180° phasing but can be run through
diameters as small as 1.78 in. To do this, the
gun is inserted into the tubing with the
charges aligned along the axis of the gun.
Once in casing, a deployment head is used
to rotate charges 90° to the firing position.
The charges then reach the full 3.79-in.
outer diameter (left ). In case of a misrun,
each pivot charge assembly is designed to
be broken, returning the gun to its original
1.69-in. diameter. This allows retrieval of
the gun with deployed charges. Only the
deployment head is recovered after success-
ful perforation; the carrier and fired charges
become debris that settles to the bottom of
the well.
The Stimulated Completion—Getting More
from Less
Stimulated completions fall into two cate-
gories, acidizing and hydraulic fracturing
(see “Stimulated Completion,” next page).
Occasionally, the two are combined in an
acid-frac, which improves productivity by
using acid to etch surfaces of hydraulically
induced fractures, preventing full closure.
Success of stimulation depends largely on
how well the perforation allows delivery of
treatment fluids and frac pressures into the
reservoir. Because these fluids and pressure-
induced fractures are intended to move
beyond the perforation, shot phasing, den-
sity and hole diameter are of higher priority
than depth of penetration. Underbalance
perforating is often used because cleaner
perforation tunnels give fluids more direct
paths to the reservoir. In some cases, such as
TCP with high shot density guns, underbal-
ance can be increased to where stimulation
is not required to improve productivity.11
However, stimulated reservoirs are usually
of low permeability, greatly limiting the
surge available to clean the perforations.
Further increases in underbalance may
achieve no improvement in cleaning.
When stimulating long intervals—often
considered more than 40 or 50 feet [12 to
15 m]—or multiple zones, the perforation
strategy may change. Delivering treatment
fluid to all perforations may be difficult.
Once fluid enters a zone of higher perme-
ability, a path is established that prevents
stimulation of zones of lower permeability.
Here, limited entry perforating can help. By
making a lower number of perforations
throughout the zone, stimulation can be
applied more uniformly across zones of
varying permeability. High-permeability
zones may take more fluid than low-perme-
ability zones, but because there are fewer
holes, a high enough pressure can be main-
tained to encourage treatment of low-per-
meability zones. After stimulation, perfora-
tions are often added to optimally produce
the zone.
Uniformity of perforation diameter is
essential to accurately determine the cumu-
lative area of the casing entrance holes.
Knowing this area and pumping pressure
allows calculation of flow rate into the for-
mation, needed to monitor progress of the
stimulation. Uniformity and smoothness of
perforation diameter also provide consis-
tently sized seats for ball sealers. These are
balls of nylon or hard rubber pumped to
temporarily block perforations with high
fluid intake, thereby diverting injection.
Limited entry perforating is usually done
via wireline. The Selectric system is
designed specifically for this application. It
consists of any number of short (1-foot [30-
cm]) single-shot guns fired selectively from
the bottom up, providing uniform entry
holes. Unlike other systems, in which a mis-
fire terminates the operation, this system has
electrical switches, rather than mechanical
switches, between guns. These allow firing
the next gun even when there is misfire.
Perforation plays a key role in the success
of hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing
has two main steps: fracture creation by
application of pressure, and injection of
fluid carrying proppant, which holds open
the fractures to allow production (see
“Cracking Rock: Progress in Fracture Treat-
ment Design,” page 4 ). Once the fracture is
created, perforations provide the entrance to
the fracture for the proppant. Perforation
diameter must be sufficient to prevent
“bridging,” accumulation of proppant that
blocks the entrance hole, preventing further
treatment. To quantify causes of bridging,
Gruesbeck and Collins performed experi-
9. Berhmann LA, Pucknell JK, Bishop SR and Hsia T-Y:
“Measurement of Additional Skin Resulting from
Perforation Damage,” paper SPE 22809, presented
at the 66th SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
Hsia T-Y and Behrmann LA: “Perforating Skin as a
Function of Rock Permeability and Underbalance,”
paper SPE 22810, presented at the 66th SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
USA, October 6-9, 1991.
10. Bell WT: “Perforating Underbalance—Evolving Tech-
niques,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 36 (Octo-
ber 1984): 1653-1662.
King GE, Anderson A and Bingham M: “A Field
Study of Underbalance Pressures Necessary to
Obtain Clean Perforations Using Tubing-Conveyed
Perforating,” paper SPE 14321, presented at the 60th
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, September 22-25, 1985.
11. King et al, reference 10.
63
 Stimulated Completion
Perforation Technique Selection

It is undetermined whether the well needs stimulation. Could underbalance perforating eliminate the need for stimulation?
or
Stimulation is required. Is any added operational complexity of underbalance perforating justified by the likely
improvement in well cleanup and stimulation?

Yes No

Perforate underbalance Perforate overbalance.

(see underbalance perforating
in Natural Completion
flowchart).

Will perforation be performed through workstring?

Yes No

Through-tubing guns Will stimulation benefit from high shot density or reduced phase angle?
(wireline conveyed)
Yes No

•Will gun or charge debris be a problem Select correct diameter high shot Casing guns
for downhole equipment? density gun compatible with (wireline conveyed)
or downhole restrictions; select
•Are more than two zones to be perforated phasing and shot density.
selectively?

Yes No
Is well deviation ≥ 60° or is the Is limited entry perforating
Exposed guns interval long enough to justify required?
Select correct
running on tubing?
diameter of scallop
or high shot density
gun compatible Yes No
with downhole
restrictions; select Tubing Wireline
phasing and shot conveyed conveyed Yes No
density.

Are uniform and circular Is the well ≤ 4000 psi, < 210°F [99°C]?
entrance holes a high priority?
and Yes No
Is 12-in. API section 3
penetration acceptable? HEGS Port plug guns

Yes No

Selectric Port plug guns

system

Boxes in red outline denote final decision points.

64 Oilfield Review
ments to determine the minimum allowable
ratio of perforation diameter to proppant
diameter for varying proppant concentra-
tions12 (below ). They found that the perfora-

a
tion must always be at least twice the prop-
pant diameter. When perforation diameter is
at least six times proppant diameter, prop-
pant concentrations can increase without
risk of bridging.
A number of studies have investigated the
relationship between perforation phasing
and the development of hydraulic fractures.
In general, hydraulic fractures propagate
normal to the minimum stress in the portion
of the reservoir undisturbed by the presence
of the wellbore. The general conclusion is
that for an ideal fracture job, perforations
are aligned with the maximum stress direc-
tion, so fractures extending from the perfo-
ration will lie in the plane that has the least
resistance to opening. Methods for align-
ment of perforations with hydraulic fractures
are still under investigation. A method in
deviated wells was reported by Pearson and
average particle diameter
Perforation diameter/

10

0
8
Maximum particle concentration, vol/vol
0

nImportance of selecting perforation

2

entrance hole diameter to prevent bridg-

ing of proppant in the perforation. To
avoid bridging, the ratio of the perfora-
tion diameter to average diameter of the
proppant must lie above the curve.
These are data for tap water and car-
boxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC),
a water-based polymer. (After Gruesbeck
and Collins, reference 12.)

colleagues. 13 Alignment of 180° phased

shots with the known fracture plane
reduced perforation friction and signifi-
cantly improved fracture treatment. Guns
were aligned by mounting them on bearings
that allowed rotation. Gun angle was con-
0.15

trolled by a steering tool or, on TCP jobs,

4

with a weighted half-cylinder that seeks the

low side of the hole. This practice, however,
is not widespread. The most practical way
to approach this today is by perforating with
a phase angle that increases the likelihood

October 1992
0.27

No bridging region

100-cp HEC solution

6 8 10
Maximum gravel content, lbm/gal
0.58

Bridging region

Tap water

30
a Hydraulic fracture
normal to least
stress

Area of
Wellbore

flow restriction
Casing

0° phasing
perforatiion

Warpinski reported that hydraulic fractures

may not lie in the same plane as the perfo-
ration.15 This observation was based on in-
situ mineback experiments in which a shal-
low, perforated wellbore was excavated to
see how the fracture propagated. Warpinski
also found that if the perforation and mini-
mum stress planes differ by more than 30°,
the fracture may initiate in a plane different
from that of the perforation. This indicates
the phase angle should be 60° or less so the
perforation is always within 30° of a frac-
ture. Minimum phasing of 60° is further sup-
ported by recent work of Behrmann and
Elbel, who showed that minimum fracture
initiation pressure and maximum fluid com-
munication between perforations and frac-
tures are achieved by minimizing “annular
flow”—slurry traveling an annular path
around the casing to communicate with the
fracture.16 This occurs when the fracture
plane and perforation lie within 30°, prefer-
ably 10° (top). Nolte17 previously pointed out
that if the hydraulic fracture does not initiate
at the perforations, annular flow may cause
premature screenout18 and asymmetric pen-
etration of the fracture wings.
60° phasing-
never > 30° from
fracture

Channel to
fracture wings

nThe importance of shot phase angle to maximizing communi-

cation between perforations and stimulated fractures. Studies of
fracture and perforation orientations show that for optimum
well productivity, the two lie within 30°, preferably 10°. This
minimizes fracture initiation pressure and the length of the
channel between the perforation and fracture wings, and
increases the likelihood the fracture will initiate along a perfora-
tion. Perforating guns with small phase angle and high shot
density achieve this optimum angle most effectively. The figure
shows that a 0° phasing could place the perforation far from the
fracture, which initiates along the plane normal to the least
stress. But in reality, wells to be fractured are often perforated
with guns of 60° phasing or less (dashed lines). This means the
perforation is never more than 30° from the fracture. (See Warpin-
ski, reference 15.)

of having shots parallel to the induced frac-

ture plane.
Laboratory experiments by Daneshy show
that fracture initiation pressures are higher
when the fracture and perforation are not
parallel and do not intersect. 14 Later,
12. Gruesbeck C and Collins RE: “Particle Transport
Through Perforations,” paper SPE 8006, presented at
the 3rd Symposium on Formation Damage Control
of the SPE of AIME, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA,
February 15-16, 1978.
13. Pearson CM, Bond AJ, Eck ME and Schmidt JH:
“Results of Stress-Oriented and Aligned Perforating
in Fracturing Deviated Wells,” Journal of Petroleum
Technology 44 (January 1992): 10-18.
14. Daneshy AA: “Experimental Investigations of
Hydraulic Fracturing Through Perforations,” Journal
of Petroleum Technology 25 (October 1973): 1201-
1206.
15. Warpinski NR: “Investigation of the Accuracy and
Reliability of In-Situ Stress Measurements Using
Hydraulic Fracturing in Perforated Cased Holes,”
Proceedings—Symposium on Rock Mechanics 24
(1983): 773-786.
16. Behrmann LA and Elbel JL: “Effect of Perforations on
Fracture Initiation,” paper SPE 20661, presented at
the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, Septem-
ber 23-26, 1990.
17. Nolte KG: “Application of Fracture Design Based on
Pressure Analysis,” SPE Production Engineering 3
(February 1988): 31-42.
18. Screenout occurs when the fluid carrying proppant is
lost to the rock matrix, interrupting fracture growth.
It results in rapid increase in pumping pressure.

65
The Sand Control Completion—Home of
Big Holes
Sanding is a problem in weak or unconsoli-
dated sandstones. The objective of a sand
control completion is to eliminate sanding
while maintaining a production rate that is
economic, minimizes reservoir damage and
thus maximizes recovery. Near the well-
bore, sand movement can reduce perme-
ability locally. Produced sand can erode
downhole and surface equipment and its
removal can be costly. In sufficient quanti-
ties, sand can plug the completion or sur-
face facilities.
An objective of perforating in these highly
productive and often unconsolidated sands
is to reduce the near-wellbore pressure gra-
dient during production (see “Sand Control
Completion,” next page ). There are two
schools of thought on the best way do this.
The established method is to perforate in a
way that takes advantage of protection
afforded by subsequent gravel packing. The-
oretical studies show that perforation geom-
etry can sometimes be optimized to obviate
gravel packing.19
For gravel packing, many large-diameter
perforations are preferred to few small
holes. This is because larger holes provide a
larger area open to flow and therefore less
pressure drop on production. To achieve
this, perforators producing large diameter
holes and high shot density are used. A uni-
form shot distribution further reduces forma-
tion stress in addition to preserving casing
strength (below ). Because of the high pro-
ductivity of the reservoir, deep penetration is
1 erally uneconomical and arches are
0.9
Remaining casing strength
0.8
0.7
0.6
• 5 shots per foot, 60° phasing
• 6 spf, 60° phasing
0.5
• 12 spf, 135° phasing
• 12 spf, 120° phasing
0.4 • 12 spf, 120° phasing
0.3
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0
Entrance hole diameter, in.
nRelationship between perforation
entrance hole diameter and phasing on
casing strength. The 135°/45° phased HSD
guns achieve the greatest area open to flow
while maintaining maximum casing
strength. Here, casing strength is normalized
to 1, the strength of unperforated casing.
66
Gun
positioned
in casing
Casing
120
Normalized entrance hole
diameter, %
80
40
0 temperature. The time-temperature rating is
0 10
Standoff as a percent of gun diameter
nCross section of a gun in casing (top) and
the effect of gun/casing standoff on entrance
hole diameter for a bighole charge.
a lower priority. Depth of penetration is suf-
ficient if it assures good communication
with the reservoir.
To create large, clean perforation tunnels,
these wells are typically shot underbalance
with TCP using high shot density guns. The
ideal underbalance will sufficiently clean
perforation tunnels without breaking down
the formation. Sand control could perhaps
be provided by maintaining production
rates low enough to prevent collapse of the
perforation tunnel’s stable arch—interlock-
ing grains, like a keystone arch over a door-
way. But such a low production rate is gen-
unstable when flow conditions change.
Instead, the arch is usually stabilized by fill-
ing the perforation with gravel (see “Sand
Control: Why and How?” page 41).
In gravel packing, a wire-wrapped screen
or slotted liner is positioned along the perfo-
rated interval. A slurry of thickened brine
carrying gravel of closely controlled size is
pumped downhole. The gravel fills the per-
foration tunnels, creating a “pack.” One key
to tightly packing the perforations is use of a
fluid that rapidly leaks off into the perfora-
1.25 1.5 tions so the gravel slurry continues flowing
until the perforation is completely full. This
slurry is followed by an additional slurry to
fill the screen-casing annulus with gravel.
The pressure drop during production can
now be distributed across both the near-
wellbore area and the gravel pack, which
helps to reduce stress at the formation.
Clearance between gun and casing has a
45°
significant effect on entrance hole size of
big hole charges (see “A Perforation Glos-
sary,” page 57 ). Adverse effects of standoff
are much less for deep penetrating charges.
Running the largest gun size practical for the
well casing provides entrance holes that
minimize the differential pressure across for-
mation and pack (left ).
Optimizing Perforation Operations—Envi-
ronment and Safety
Each perforating system has ratings intended
to ensure safety and minimize operating
risk. Foremost are ratings for maximum and
minimum pressure and “time-at-tempera-
ture”—the duration of exposure at a given
20 30 determined by the explosive material,
which degrades at elevated temperatures
and extended exposure times. This degrada-
tion results in a loss of sensitivity—leading
to a potential misfire—and loss of strength—
leading to reduced charge performance.
Today’s ratings have been established by
both laboratory tests and extensive field
experience.
The most common explosives in current
use are cyclotrimethylene trinitramine, RDX
for short, and cyclotetramethylene tetran-
itramine, HMX for short. When conveyed
by wireline, RDX is limited to exposure of 1
hour at 330°F [166°C], or when tubing con-
veyed, to 100 hours at 200°F [93°C]. Simi-
larly, HMX survives 1 hour at 400°F
[204°C], and 100 hours at 300°F [149°C].
At higher temperatures or longer exposures,
explosives and special elastomers and lubri-
cants are available to perforate reliably at up
to 500°F [260°C] for wireline-conveyed
applications and up to 460°F [238°C] for
TCP. Explosives for high temperatures,
called HNS and PYX, are much more expen-
sive and generally stocked only in areas
where high-temperature wells are common.
It is generally recognized that guns have a
maximum pressure rating. Exceeding this
value can cause the gun to collapse or fluid
to enter, possibly splitting the gun and stick-
ing it in the casing if detonation occurs. Less
well-recognized are gun limitations when
perforating in gas. Not all guns that can be
fired in a liquid-filled borehole can tolerate
the higher shock associated with firing in a
gas-filled borehole, which lacks the damp-
ing effect of wellbore fluid. Some guns must
Oilfield Review
 Sand Control Completion
Big Hole Perforation Technique Selection

Does improvement in well cleanup from underbalance perforating justify added complexity?

Yes No

Perforate underbalance with high shot density guns Perforate overbalance with high shot density guns
and big hole charges and big hole charges
(tubing conveyed). (tubing conveyed).

Are downhole pressure/flow rate measurements

required?

Yes No

Drillstem test Surge Perforation Select largest high shot density guns
(Brief, high-intensity flow to recommended for casing size.
clean perfs; no rate
information collected.)

Select TCP firing Select TCP firing

system and accessories system and
to integrate with DST accessories to provide
string. perforation surging. Is well deviation ≥ 60° or is the interval long
enough to justify running on tubing?

Is a significant amount of sand production expected

regardless of underbalance choice? Yes No

Yes No

To minimize risk of Select largest high shot Select TCP firing system Wireline-conveyed guns.
sticking guns, select density guns and accessories.
guns of reduced recommended for
diameter. casing size.

Boxes in red outline denote final decision points.

be supported by liquid at atmospheric pres-
sure or higher. Special carriers are available
for some guns for use in gas and high-pres-
sure settings.
Although perforating guns are sometimes
exposed to hostile environments, ratings are
rarely specified. The reason is both practical
and technical. A hostile environment com-
prises many variables—wellbore tempera-
ture, pressure, hydrogen sulfide [H2S], treat-
ment acid, carbon dioxide [CO2], duration
of exposure and stress during exposure. Not
all can be quantified to determine if serious
risk exists. Because of the demands of perfo-
rating, hardware must be robust and of high
quality steel, well suited to hostile environ-
ments. For wireline-conveyed guns, expo-
sure time is minimal. In TCP, where guns
and accessories may be exposed for an
extended period, H2S-resistant accessories
are available.
Each perforating system has a number of
features, often redundant, to ensure safe
19. Santarelli FJ, Ouadfel H and Zundel JP: “Optimizing
the Completion Procedure to Minimize Sand Pro-
duction Risk,” paper SPE 22797, presented at the
66th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.

October 1992 67
aa
wellsite operations. Guns themselves con-
tain only secondary explosives (charges,
detonating cord, boosters) and are armed
with the primary explosive (detonator) just
prior to running in the well. This allows for
safe loading and handling. Guns are com-
monly transported to the wellsite loaded, but
armed only just before being run in the hole.
Firing assemblies are designed to protect the
detonator and position it to initiate the deto-
nating cord. In the event guns are retrieved
unfired, disarming is simple and may be
performed immediately.
In wireline-conveyed perforating, electri-
cal detonators are used, fired by applying
power from surface. The detonators are dis-
abled if fluid floods the gun, preventing
accidental detonation.
Surface equipment is shut off and
grounded prior to running and pulling the
guns, eliminating accidental application of
power. In addition, radio transmission,
welding and cathodic protection systems
are shut down to eliminate possible stray
voltages. This requirement can be a serious
operational limitation, for example, elimi-
nating radio communication to offshore
platforms. To safely overcome this limita-
tion, the S.A.F.E. Slapper Actuated Firing
Equipment system has been developed.20 In
the S.A.F.E. system, a special initiator is used
that fires only from a very high voltage pulse
of short duration—a pulse not produced by
routine rig operations. The S.A.F.E. initiator
contains no primary explosive and initiates
only from a specific signal from surface.
TCP has safety features common to many
other techniques. In Schlumberger systems,
firing heads are connected to the top of the
gun string with a blank interval of at least 10
feet [3 m] above the top shot. This allows
arming of guns only after the charges are
below the rig floor, away from personnel.
Firing pins require a minimum of 150 to
300 psi to drive into detonators, ensuring no
possibility of firing until below surface.
The Trigger Charge Firing system allows
running and positioning the TCP guns in the
well with no detonator. The firing head is
subsequently run on wireline. This provides
additional safety while running the guns and
retrieving the firing head prior to pulling
misfired guns.

68
aWireline latch/
anchor setting
tool

Safety spacer

High shot
density gun

Anchor
gripping
casing

nA variation of the monobore completion,

using a permanent packer. Monobore
completions are most common in the
North Sea and Venezuela.
New Completion Methods—Access for Big
Guns
Efforts of well operators to be more cost-
effective have led to variations in comple-
tion techniques, and concomitant innova-
tions in perforating. A completion that has
gained popularity in the North Sea and
Venezuela is called the monobore. As the
name implies, a monobore completion has
a production string of uniform diameter,
from the reservoir to surface. Casing is set
well above the reservoir, up to half the well
depth. Then, a smaller diameter hole is
drilled to total depth and a long liner run
(Liner is any casing that doesn’t reach sur-
face). Once the liner is set, production tub-
ing of the same diameter as the liner is run
and engages a sealing assembly on top of
the liner. The well now has a “monobore,”
with the liner serving as both casing, provid-
ing protection, and as tubing, conveying
production. This approach has the advan-
tage of requiring a less expensive, smaller
hole with lower tubular costs, yet provides a
large-diameter production string. The well is
then perforated with high shot density guns,
either wireline conveyed or anchored in the
liner after running on wireline or tubing.
The guns are then dropped, either automati-
cally upon firing or mechanically via a wire-
line trip.
Variations of the monobore technique are
already in use. One is to set a permanent
packer on production tubing at the top of
the liner with guns suspended below (left ).
This allows use of the largest possible high
shot density guns, while retaining the eco-
nomic advantage of the monobore tech-
nique. Underbalance is established and a
wireline assembly is then run in and latched
to the guns, which are lowered to target
depth. They are set using an anchor that
hangs them in the casing. The wireline is
then pulled out and the guns fired by pres-
sure actuation. The guns are then released
20. Huber K, Pousset M and White D: “New Technol-
ogy for Saving Lives,” Oilfield Review 2, no. 4
(October 1990): 40-52.

Oilfield Review
aa
aaaa Wireline

Casing collar
locator

Permanent
packer

Production
ports

High shot
density gun
Wireline
pressure
setting tool

Firing head

nHigh shot density guns run below a

wireline-set packer. This permanent com-
pletion allows underbalance perforating
with the largest possible diameter guns in
a permanent completion. Guns are usu-
ally dropped after firing.

October 1992
as in the standard monobore method, either
automatically or by wireline trip. In perforat-
ing long intervals, where gun string weight
exceeds the wireline limit, the guns can be
run and anchored in the monobore prior to
running the permanent packer and produc-
tion tubing.
Another type of completion allows larger
diameter guns than could be stabbed
through a permanent packer or run through
tubing (left ). To achieve this, a permanent
packer is set on wireline, with high shot
density guns suspended below. Then, tubing
is run, underbalance established and the
guns fired and dropped.
A third perforation system is used for dual-
string completions—two tubing strings run
adjacent to each other to isolate production
from two zones (right ). This allows under-
balance perforating of the upper interval
without killing the well prior to production.
Developing a perforation strategy involves
analyzing the reservoir using all data avail-
able to design the job for the anticipated
conditions. A common pitfall is to bypass
this process, repeating what is considered
tried and true or what worked last time. This
results in some wins and some losses. The
best approach is to arrive at a perforation
strategy by combining both field and operat-
ing experience. Only this approach allows
the operator to duplicate what went right in
previous jobs, avoid repeating mistakes, and
test new techniques that hold promise.
—JMK
Dual string
packer

Oriented high
shot density
guns

High shot
density guns
Casing

Production
ports

nA dual-string completion that allows

underbalance perforating of both strings.
In this instance, the lower zone is perfo-
rated with high shot density guns
stabbed through a packer. The upper
zone is perforated with high shot density
guns suspended below a dual string
packer. These guns are loaded and ori-
ented to perforate the half of the casing
opposite the adjacent long string.

69
F O C U S
Talking Satellites
I
n oil exploration, knowing where you are plays just as
important a role as knowing where the oil is. For posi-
tioning and navigation data, explorationists are now
looking skyward toward an orbiting constellation of satellites
to execute seismic surveys, position rigs and locate machinery.
The Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS), introduced
in 1983 as a tool for enhancing US military capabilities, is a
satellite-based radio navigation system (next page, top).
When fully operational at the end of 1993, GPS will comprise
24 satellites, including three spares, each orbiting the earth
every 12 hours at an altitude of 20,200 km [12,500 miles].
Equipped with four atomic clocks, each satellite broadcasts
precise time, satellite position and condition data 24 hours a
day. At least five satellites will be visible to users anywhere
in the world. So far, 18 satellites are in orbit.
The fundamental measurement of GPS is the time
required for a signal to travel from a satellite to the
receiver—often a portable, hand-held device—which gives
the satellite-receiver distance. Measurements collected
simultaneously from four satellites, each distinguished by a
unique code, are processed at the receiver to determine in
real time the receiver’s longitude, latitude, altitude and veloc-
ity, if the receiver is moving. Error is 3 to 100 meters [10 to
330 feet], depending on the amount of error correction
applied during processing and type of signal being processed.
GPS is not the first satellite-based system used for navi-
gation. The Transit system, developed by the US Navy in
1960, contained fewer satellites in tighter orbits. To calculate
a position with Transit, a receiver measured the Doppler
effect, or frequency shift, detected in signals emitted by a
satellite of known trajectory. Errors were as high as 150 m
70
[490 ft] and Transit provided a fix only about once an hour to
locations near the equator.
Throughout the transportation industry, research is under-
way to harness GPS for managing air traffic, train routing,
and ship navigation, for dispatching delivery truck fleets and
reducing gridlock. Scientists use GPS to track continental
drift (using sophisticated analysis techniques), predict earth-
quakes and monitor changes in the atmosphere caused by
the greenhouse effect. For oil patch applications, GPS is
more accessible, more accurate and less expensive than
conventional land-based radio navigation systems.
Accessibility to GPS is worldwide and continuous—a
boon to underdeveloped areas and far offshore regions
where no other effective system exists. GPS can accommo-
date an infinite number of users whereas land-based sys-
tems used in marine seismic restrict the number of users.
For oil exploration, most of the cost savings from GPS
stem from its global coverage. Crews on land conducting a
seismic survey or positioning a rig must sight between sur-
vey points, which often requires massive and costly clearing
of vegetation. GPS demands only enough clearance to view
the satellites from each survey point. In marine seismic, the
operator frequently foots the expense of establishing the
navigation chain, operating it and demobilizing equipment
when the survey is completed. Even in locations with a land-
based system in place, operators rely on time-consuming
and costly licensing negotiations with local authorities.
With conventional radio navigation, operators at the start
of a survey install job-specific equipment that takes at least a
day to calibrate and verify. GPS receivers, once installed, are
permanent, and calibration and verification takes minutes.
Conventional radio navigation may also be limited by inter-
Oilfield Review
 The GPS system, with world-
wide, continuous coverage,
provides useful navigation and
positioning data for land and
marine seismic operations.

ference from nearby vessels and aircraft, the shape of the

shoreline, elevation of onshore beacons and vegetation that
deflects signals. These limitations are absent from GPS.
The global accessibility of GPS proves a double-edged
sword to the originator of the system, the US Department of
Defense (DOD). To maintain US military advantage with GPS,
DOD offers two GPS services: precise positioning service
(PPS) and standard positioning service (SPS). PPS signals
DGPS improves the accuracy
can fix a position to within 10 m [33 ft], but are encrypted to of GPS measurements by
prevent unauthorized access. Only users who satisfy national comparing the known coordi-
nates of a nearby reference
security requirements have access to PPS signals. The SPS
with its GPS fix.
signals, on the other hand, are available to everyone but
have been degraded through a technique known as selective
availability (SA). With SA activated, accuracy plummets an
order of magnitude to 100 m, unacceptable for surveying
and marine navigation.
SA limitations can be circumvented, however, by a tech-
nique called differential GPS or DGPS, first developed in the
late 1980s by scientists studying the shape of the earth
(above, right ). DGPS compares known coordinates of a

October 1992 71
nearby fixed reference receiver with the receiver’s GPS fix.
The error from the GPS signal can then be transmitted to the
user, who applies the corrections to the received signals or Air gun
array
computed position. In the North Sea, for example, compa-
Front
nies offering DGPS services claim an accuracy of 3 to 5 m buoy

[10 to 16 ft] at distances up to 2000 km [1240 miles] from a

reference station.
Much controversy surrounds the continued US enforce-
ment of SA, especially during peacetime. Civilian users point
to the success of DGPS and the development of a similar
satellite system by the former Soviet Union called GLONASS.
However, SA is here to stay as long as the current GPS sys-
tem affords the US and its allies a military advantage, even
by forcing hostile nations to develop DGPS capabilities.
Placement of GPS receivers
From an oil industry perspective, DGPS would be utilized on a marine seismic survey
with or without SA to meet the stringent positioning require- and (inset) a GPS receiver on
a front buoy.
ments of seismic surveys (accuracy to within 5 m).
The most elaborate use of GPS in oil exploration is marine
seismic, which marries the new technology with conven-
tional navigation and positioning techniques. During a sur-
vey, GPS receivers may be located on the survey vessels, the
front buoys and the tail buoys (right ). Satellite-to-vessel and
satellite-to-buoy ranges are computed to derive the position
of the front and tail buoys relative to the vessel. Acoustic
positioning devices called transponders are located on the Tail buoy

survey vessels, source arrays, streamers and tail buoys. (Tran-

sponders are still needed because GPS receivers do not oper-
ate underwater.) The position of the transponder relative to a
survey vessel or buoy is determined by measuring the time
it takes acoustic pulses emitted from one transponder to
reach another. In addition, laser ranges measure the distance
between the vessel and source arrays, and compasses
spaced along each cable monitor the streamer shape.
Typically, a backup positioning system is desired in a
marine seismic survey in case the primary one fails. Conse-
GPS receiver
Magnetic compass
quently, DGPS will not replace, but rather integrate with,
existing systems. Use of DGPS as a primary positioning sys-
tem has grown in the North Sea because its greater reliability
minimizes the risk of operational failure. Improving software
that can integrate DGPS data with existing measurements
will secure the cost savings promised by the new technology.
—TAL

Acknowledgements and Further Reading

For help in preparing this focus, thanks to Erik Vigen,
GECO-PRAKLA R&E, Sandvika, Norway and Bruce
King, GECO-PRAKLA, Stavanger, Norway.
For further reading:
Jensen MHB: “Quality Control for Differential GPS in
Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration, ” GPS World 3, no.
8 (September 1992): 36-48.

72 Oilfield Review