You are on page 1of 6

D I S T I N G U I S H E D

A U T H O R

S E R I E S

FRACTURED WELL PERFORMANCE: KEY TO FRACTURE TREATMENT SUCCESS

Hemanta Mukherjee, SPE, Schlumberger Oilfield Services
SUMMARY

Best production practice requires the optimum production rate from a well with maximum bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP). This can be engineered only by reducing pressure losses in the reservoir-flow conduit that comprises the reservoir rock and the near-wellbore completion at or near the perforation. Under most producing conditions, an induced fracture with appropriate geometry minimizes near-wellbore pressure losses very efficiently. This paper explores this role of the hydraulic fracture, which results in many applications under different reservoir conditions. Problems concerning placement of an optimally designed hydraulic fracture and common solutions also are discussed.
INTRODUCTION

The basic objectives of hydraulic fracturing are to increase productivity or injectivity and to improve the efficiency of steam injection in thermal floods. A more fundamental and alternative view to explain the role of induced fracturing comes from Prats1 contention that hydraulic fractures extend the wellbore radius. There are a few ways to explain the profound implications of extended wellbores.2 The most practical explanation derives from understanding the pressure losses in the area of drainage. Darcys law states that the pressure gradient in the direction of flow is directly proportional to the velocity. This is stated mathematically in consistent units by dp/dx=v/k, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)

lower drawdown; or at a combination that considers sand-, water-, or gas-control problems. For a fixed velocity, Darcys law also implies that the pressure gradient is inversely proportional to the reservoir permeability: the lower the effective permeability of the flowing phase, the higher the pressure gradient. Near the wellbore, permeability is reduced through different radial-damage mechanisms, such as drilling-fluid invasion and production-induced mechanisms (e.g., condensate dropout from gas, solids/fines deposit, sublimation of sulfur, paraffin deposit, and other scale deposits). Consequently, the pressure gradient at the wellbore increases as a result of both increased velocity and the reduced permeability caused by damage. Induced hydraulic fractures not only reduce pressure gradients near the wellbore by increasing the surface area of fluid entry but also inhibit some production-induced-damage mechanisms by reducing drawdown and physically bypassing these damaged areas. In many such production-induced-damage mitigations, fracturing can postpone the need for frequent matrix acid treatments.
FRACTURE OPTIMIZATION

A fracture can be idealized as a slot induced in the rock, possibly open between acid-etched surfaces or filled with proppant to resist closure. It can be shown analytically that the permeability of an open slot is proportional to the square of slot width; this can be presented as k=54.4106 w2, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)

where v=q/A. This relationship also implies that the lower the velocity, the lower the pressure gradient in the path of flow. In radial drainage, with constant volumetric rate, the flow velocity in the radial-flow path is maximum at the wellbore. Fig. 1 explains this point with real dimensions. The velocity at a wellbore of 6-in. radius is 2,000 times that at the entry into the drainage (1,000 ft from the wellbore), assuming negligible fluid entry within this drainage. From Darcys law, this implies that, at the wellbore perimeter, the pressure gradient is 2,000 times greater than at the drainage surface 1,000 ft from the wellbore. This also suggests that, if the wellbore diameter is increased to 100 ft from 6 in., the entry velocity into this wellbore increases 10 times that at drainage. This translates to a substantial net increase in BHFP by effectively increasing the wellbore radius from 6 in. to 100 ft. Such an increase in the BHFP can be used to produce the well at higher rates; at

where permeability, k, is in darcies and slot width, w, is in inches. The permeability of a 0.01-in.-wide open slot is 5,440 darcies.3 Because permeability is inversely proportional to the pressure loss through porous media, the pressure losses at or near the wellbore can be minimized if the fluid flow can be directed through a fracture or a high-permeability slot from the reservoir to the wellbore. Consequently, the extent of this pressure-loss control determines the major fracture properties, such as its physical dimensions and the permeability with or without proppant. Design Criteria. Optimum fracture dimensions, such as fracture length and width, are designed to provide high conductivity or low pressure loss in the flow channel from the reservoir to the wellbore. Agarwal et al.4 showed that these fracture dimensions are controlled by a dimensionless parameter called dimensionless fracture conductivity, CfD, defined as CfD=k f w f /(kx f ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) This dimensionless number should be greater than 10 for good fracture design. Attaining a value this high for CfD is often difficult, especially in high-permeability reservoirs. A dimensional study on the parameters in Eq. 3 [such as fracture capacity, kfwf, which norMARCH 1999

Copyright 1999 Society of Petroleum Engineers This is paper SPE 50976. Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptive representations that summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent developments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by individuals recognized as experts in the area, these articles provide key references to more definitive work and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to inform the general readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum engineering. A softbound anthology, SPE Distinguished Author Series: Dec. 1981Dec. 1983, is available from SPEs Customer Service Dept.

54

Fig. 1In radial flow and for fixed flow rates, velocity of fluid entry, v, decreases with increased wellbore radius. Fig. 2Uncontained fracture-height growth results in decreased fracture half-length.

mally varies between 100 and 5,000 md-ft for the available proppants in hard rocks unless tip-screenout5,6 (TSO) design is adopted] makes the reason for this obvious. In the soft-rock environment with low Youngs modulus that is conducive to TSO, the fracture capacity can be increased by another order of magnitude. Reservoir permeability, on the other hand, can vary over a much wider range from microdarcy to a couple of darcies (0.001 to 10,000 md), a range of seven orders of magnitudes. This wide range makes permeability of a reservoir the single most important factor in fracture design that controls and limits the application of fracturing. Optimum fracture length depends on permeability, which is also based on the criteria presented on the dimensionless fracture conductivity. Design Parameters. It is very important to note that, although the fracture-design criteria are based primarily on such reservoir-flow properties as permeability, the design parameters are dependent on the mechanical properties of the rock (such as the minimum principal stresses and Youngs modulus) in addition to the fluid-leakoff coefficient (a direct function of rock permeability). Simply stated, the optimum designed fracture geometry is determined from the reservoir properties but the placement to achieve the designed geometry depends on the mechanical properties of the rock. This discrepant need for an ideal combination of reservoir-flow and mechanical properties often causes fracture-placement problems, leading to underperformance of fractured wells. This problem is particularly severe if reasonable estimates of both reservoir and rock properties are not used in fracture design.
CAUSES OF UNDERPERFORMANCE

coefficient. As Fig. 2 shows, in the absence of adequate stress barriers, fractures tend to grow in height at the expense of length. Height growth can be contained under certain stress conditions. High-permeability formations with high leakoff normally shrink fractures, controlling both height and extension.11 Fortunately, the higher the permeability is, the lower the fracture-length requirement.12-15 This helps in the design of high-permeability fracturing, such as frac and pack in the Gulf of Mexico. Because of the small fracture half-length requirement, these treatments develop very low net pressure; this is aided by high leakoff and low Youngs modulus. Lower treatment pressures also contain these fractures. In low-permeability formations, where long fracture length is absolutely necessary, fracture-height growth is often a problem. This can be partially arrested by placing barriers of dehydrated proppants at the upper and lower tips of the fracture (Fig. 3).16-18 Inappropriate Perforation. Perforation design is a very important aspect of overall fracture-geometry evolution.19-25 Perforations not only provide communication between the wellbore and the reservoir during production but also provide an important conduit for fracture-fluid and slurry entry into the growing fracture during its placement. The objective of perforating in hydraulically fractured wells is to minimize near-wellbore pressure losses caused by near-wellbore effects during fracture placement. These near-wellbore effects are perforation friction, microannulus pinch points from gun-phasing misalignment, multiple competing fractures, and fracture tortuosity caused by curved fracture connection to wellbore.20 Cement bond with casing and the formation can be very weak and vulnerable to fracture-fluid entry, generating microannuli around the wellbore. In such conditions or in the absence of cement integrity, perforation phasing

The most common causes of fracture underperformance arise from the inability to achieve designed geometry and include the following. 1. Unconfined height growth. 2. Inappropriate perforation. 3. Creation of a horizontal fracture instead of designed vertical fracture. 4. Inadequate conductivity/near-wellbore choke. 5. Asymmetric fracture extension in depleted reservoirs. 6. Insufficient fracture coverage in multilayered reservoirs. 7. Radial damage.
MITIGATION PRACTICES IN HYDRAULIC ALLY INDUCED FRACTURING

Upper Barrier

Lower Barrier

Height Containment. Fracture length and conductivity in the pay zone are the two main fracture parameters that control well performance.7,8 These fracture dimensions are determined on the basis of reservoir properties. However, the geometry of the fracture during placement depends on the in-situ stress7-10 and the leakoff
MARCH 1999

Fig. 3Height containment through barrier placement as a pretreatment.

55

does not make too much difference in fracture initiation and growth. However, perforation-tunnel diameter and shot density should be high enough to minimize treatment pressure losses. In wells with good cement bond, perforation phasing, shot density, length of perforated interval, tunnel diameter, and other such factors become very important for proper fracture placement. Fractures extend perpendicular to the minimum-principal-stress direction. If the minimum-principal-stress direction is horizontal, the preferred fracture plane (PFP) is vertical. If vertical wells or near-vertical wells (generally deviations less than 3020) are perforated properly, created fractures should be in contact with the wellbore throughout the perforated interval. In this case, the best communication between the fracture and the perforations is established when the perforations are phased 180 and are oriented within 30 of the PFP 20,21,23 As the angle between perforation to . PFP increases, the fracture-initiation pressure increases because of horizontal-stress difference. In vertical wells with good cement bond, the following perforation criteria should be used. 1. If the PFP is known with reasonable accuracy, oriented 180 phased perforation in alignment with PFP is preferred. In this case, all the holes should communicate with the fracture. Adequate shot density and tunnel diameter should minimize the pressure loss. The tunnel length should be such that it creates at least a 1- or 2in. hole in the reservoir rock to help fracture initiation. 2. If the PFP is unknown, a 60 phased gun and three times the shot density of 180 phasing (because of limitations in direct links to the fracture) are recommended.23 In this case, 90 and 120 phasing guns are also preferred over 0 and 180 phasing guns. Another important aspect of perforation design is determination of the perforation interval. To achieve optimum fracture dimensions, the perforation interval should be selected with due consideration of the lithology, the stress profile, and the leakoff profile (high-permeability streaks). This is done by consulting appropriate well logs. The actual field data presented in the log in Fig. 4 illustrate this point. The log shows the carbonate pay zones in the 6,000- to 6,100-ft depth interval. The stress profile shows higher stress in most of the pay zone overlain by very shaly carbonates with substantially lower stress. The lower pay zones in the 6,080to 6,090-ft interval are naturally fractured and have higher permeability. Note that high permeability with high leakoff shrinks fractures. If this well is perforated in the whole pay zone and treated at an adequate rate to create fracture, the fluid entering through the upper sets of perforations creates a fracture that grows above the pay zone, resulting in very poor well performance. If the 5-ft interval of high permeability above the depth of 6,084 ft is perforated and treated at a high enough rate, the fracture grows upward from the lower part of the pay to cover more of the pay zone with the optimum fracture half-length. Coverage of this zone with high permeability results in high fluid loss and thus requires higher treatment rates to keep the fracture open and growing upward into the tighter pay zones. Fracturing high-permeability pay also ensures improved well performance. In this case, initiation of the fracture in this lower zone is certainly preferable to perforating the whole pay zone or the upper part of it to initiate the fracture. Horizontal Fractures. Before any fracture is designed, it is very important to know the general orientation of the induced fracture. Perforation design for horizontal- and vertical-fracture placement is totally different. If well-performance calculations and the fracture net present value are based on vertical-fracture orientation and the PFP is horizontal, well-performance results can be catastrophic. In this case, there are two reasons for underperformance. 1. Vertical fractures are fed by horizontal flow streams from the reservoir that are perpendicular to the fracture surface. In sedimentary deposits, horizontal permeability is at least an order of
56

Fig. 4To fracture, perforate on the basis of vertical-stress and leakoff profiles.

magnitude higher than vertical permeability. Consequently, the vertical fractures perform better. 2. Horizontal fractures in sedimentary rock produce through the lower vertical permeability, resulting in lower production. If the whole vertical interval is perforated with the expectation of placing a vertical fracture, it tends to create very-low-radius horizontal fractures through each perforation tunnel. These tiny pancakeshaped fractures normally lose fluid at accelerated rates, causing early screenouts. The result is a number of very poorly placed horizontal fractures with very poor well performance. In this case, a select number of good horizontal fractures should be placed through high-density perforations located in very short intervals (no more than 1 ft each). Fracture-Conductivity Control. Because of the limitations in proppant permeability, fracture-width manipulation provides the best control of fracture conductivity. TSO design is the best way to control fracture width.5,6 This requires sizing the pad volume on the basis of injection rate, leakoff coefficient, and slurry schedule to create the designed fracture length with dehydrated proppants bridging the tip. Once TSO is achieved, more slurry at higher proppant concentration is pumped to open the fracture and simultaneously fill it up with proppant; this leaves a minimum volume of fluid in the created fracture. Minimum fluid in the fracture at the end of treatment ensures faster closure and allows minimum proppant movement during closure. At the end of such treatments, the fracture is completely filled with proppant. In many low-permeability reservoirs, fracture length becomes very important. Large pads are pumped to create the long fractures required. Because of the high fracture-fluid efficiency in these systems, fracture-closure times can be very long, which allows the proppant slurry to settle in the fracture. If the fracture grows below the pay, such a phenomenon tends to deprive the pay of adequate proppant conductivity. The proppant-pack movement during closure normally moves proppant away from the perforations (Fig. 5), creating a choked fracture that does not have the needed connection to the wellbore. Depending on fracture geometry, in this case, a quick flowback often helps maintain fracture conductivity.26-27
MARCH 1999

Poor Conductivity

Fig. 5Effect of immediate flowback on fracture conductivity near the wellbore.

This is a good practice that helps in most cases and seldom damages fracture conductivity. Asymmetric Fracture. Induced vertical hydraulic fractures are assumed to grow symmetrically around the wellbore in two symmetric wings. Under ideal stress conditions in a homogeneous reservoir at static-pore-pressure condition, this assumption seems to be valid and performance calculations based on it usually are accurate. However, in mature producing fields where infill wells are fractured, the pore-pressure distribution around active wells may alter the natural stress profiles, causing asymmetric fracture growth and underperformance. Hydraulic fractures grow in the path of least resistance, which normally is in the direction of the maximum principal stress. In a depleting reservoir, the pore-pressure distribution changes with the dynamics of fluid flow in the reservoir because of production and injection streamlines. Unlike in static reservoirs, pore-pressure distribution in producing or actively flooded reservoirs can cause reorientation of the fracture azimuth (Fig. 6).28 Insufficient Fracture Coverage in Multilayered Reservoirs. Multilayered formations often are fractured in single-stage treatments. A common problem in such treatments is nonuniform coverage by fractures in all the layers. If every layer is perforated with similar guns with the same shot density, either the higher-permeability layers take most of the fluid, depriving the low-permeability layers, or the low-closure-stress layers fracture and take fluids before the high-stress layers. A combination of permeability, thickness, and closure stress of individual layers determines the coverage of layers. To avoid incomplete coverage of layers, multilayered-

Fig. 6Asymmetric fracture extension resulting from pore-pressure depletion.

fracture models should be used to design the perforation in each layer to cover all the zones. These multilayered models consider individual layer thickness, layer permeabilities, and closure stresses to allocate fluid entries into each layer. Sensitizing on the number of perforations in each layer, these models allow proper design of fractures with adequate coverage of all layers. Fig. 7 shows a sample application of multilayered fracturing models for coverage of four different layers. The actual case presented in Fig. 7 is a poorly fractured well with perforated intervals in each layer and with designed fracture half-lengths in these layers from a shot density of 4 shots/ft. These perforated intervals are also the pay thicknesses of these layers. In this case, the lower two layers with higher productivity indices are deprived of fracture coverage. The design, with the same pump schedule and same shot density, is improved by altering only the number of perforations in each layer like in the equivalent new perforation intervals shown for the multilayer case in Fig. 7. The lower two layers in this design received more perforations than the upper two layers, as dictated by the multilayer model. For example, according to the model, the lowest zone needed 120 perforations (equivalent of a 30-ft perforation interval with 4 shots/ft) compared with only 80 holes in the actual case. As Fig. 7 shows, the result is more uniform coverage of fractures in all four layers and a corresponding improvement in well performance of more than 40% at the end of 1 year.

xf

Fig. 7Effect of perforation on multilayer-fracture extension.

MARCH 1999

57

r= v= w= x= = =

damage-collar radius, L, ft velocity, L/t width, L, ft fracture half-length, L, ft viscosity, m/Lt Poissons ratio

Subscripts f= fracture
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank SPE for the invitation to participate in the Distinguished Author Series program. I also thank the many colleagues who contributed to the building of the present knowledge base used in this paper. At different times in my career, Schlumberger Oilfield Services provided the unique opportunity to review well problems with the engineers, generating the core content of this paper.
REFERENCES

In many high-permeability formations, producing fluids carry solids toward the wellbore and deposit these solids at or near the wellbore. If this process continues, it results in radial-damage collars around the wellbore (Fig. 8). Depending on the depth of the damage collar, the best way to regain production losses may be to fracture these wells beyond these damage collars. Normally, matrix acidization can be applied commercially to affect less than 3 ft of damage from the wellbore owing to cost considerations. If the damage extends farther, fracturing becomes a viable alternative and often results in a more sustained production increase. A method is available that predicts the depth of damage collars with corresponding permeabilities through a buildup test.29 Depending on the depth of damage collars, the optimum fracturedesign parameters, such as length and conductivity, vary significantly. The simulation of the productivity ratio vs. fracture half-length in Fig. 9 shows the importance in this case of conductivity above a minimum fracture half-length. The critical fracture half-length in the example is approximately 10 ft. Depending on the original permeability of the reservoir rock and the damage-collar radius beyond this critical fracture half-length, well performance (folds of increase in rate) becomes sensitive to the fracture productivity.
CONCLUSIONS

This paper points out some of the common reasons for underperformance of induced hydraulic fractures. Placement of optimum fractures depends on rock properties (such as permeability) and fluid properties (such as stress and leakoff coefficient) that are independent of the reservoir properties used to optimize fracture geometry (such as length and conductivity). Consequently, placement of optimum-design fractures often becomes difficult. This is particularly true in very-low-permeability rocks, where long fracture half-lengths are required for optimum flow. Evolution of such long fracture halflengths needs precise understanding of the confining parameters, such as stress barriers in adjoining layers. Understanding the parameters that limit fracture placement discussed in this paper can often improve their placement and at least limits undue expectations from hydraulic fractures. Acquisition of adequate data through well logging, well testing, and minifracturing in key wells before inducing a fracture is imperative for optimum fracture design.
NOMENCLATURE

A= k= p= q=
58

area, L2 permeability, L2, md pressure, m/Lt2, psia rate, L3/t

21. Prats, M.: Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Behavior Incompressible Fluid Case, SPEJ (June 1961)105; Trans., AIME, 222. 22. McGuire, W.J. and Sikora, V.J.: The Effect of Vertical Fractures on Well Productivity, JPT (October 1960) 72; Trans., AIME, 219. 23. Frick, T.: Petroleum Production Handbook, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1962) 2, 2318. 24. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D., and Pollock, C.B.: Evaluation and Performance Prediction of Low-Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing, JPT (March 1979) 362; Trans., AIME, 267. 25. Smith, M.B., Miller, W.K. II, and Haga, J.: Tip-Screenout Fracturing: A Technique for Soft, Unstable Formations, SPEPE (May 1987) 95; Trans., AIME, 283. 26. Martins, J.P et al.: Tip-Screenout Fracturing Applied to the Ravenspurn . South Gas Field Development, SPEPE (August 1992) 252. 27. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V., F and Dominguez, N.: Transient., Pressure Behavior for a Well With a Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture, SPEJ (August 1978) 153. 28. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F Transient-Pressure Analysis for .: Fractured Wells, JPT (September 1981) 1749. 29. Warpinski, N.R., Schmidt, R.A., and Northrop, D.A.: In-Situ Stresses: The Predominant Influence of Hydraulic-Fracture Containment, JPT (March 1992) 653. 10. Ben Naceur, K. and Touboul, Eric: Mechanisms Controlling FractureHeight Growth in Layered Media, SPEPE (May 1990) 142. 11. Cleary, M.P Analysis of Mechanisms and Procedures for Producing .: Favorable Shapes of Hydraulic Fractures, paper SPE 9260 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2124 September. 12. Barree, R.D.: A Practical Numerical Simulator for Three-Dimensional Fracture Propagation in Heterogeneous Media, paper SPE 12273 presented at the 1983 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Francisco, 1518 November. 13. Mukherjee, H., Morales, R.H., and Dennoo, S.A.: Influence of Rock Heterogeneities on Fracture Geometry in the Green River Basin, SPEPE (August 1992) 267. 14. Nolte, K.G. and Smith, M.B.: Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures, JPT (September 1981) 1767. 15. Nolte, K.G.: A General Analysis of Fracturing-Pressure Decline With Application to Three Models, SPEFE (December 1986) 571. 16. Mukherjee, H. et al.: Successful Control of Fracture-Height Growth by Placement of Artificial Barrier, SPEPF (May 1995) 89. 17. Barree, R.D. and Mukherjee, H.: Design Guidelines for ArtificialBarrier Placement and Their Impact on Fracture Geometry, paper SPE 29501 presented at 1995 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 24 April.
MARCH 1999

18. Morales, Rogelio et al.: Production Optimization by an Artificial Control of Fracture-Height Growth, paper SPE 38150 presented at the 1997 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 23 June. 19. Daneshy, A.A.: Experimental Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing Through Perforations, JPT (October 1973) 1201. 20. Behrmann, L.A. and Elbel, J.L.: Effects of Perforations on Fracture Initiation, JPT (May 1991) 608. 21. Pearson, C.M. et al.: Results of Stress-Oriented Perforating in Fracturing Deviated Wells, JPT (June 1992) 10. 22. Romero, J., Mack, M.G., and Elbel, J.L.: Theoretical Model and Numerical Investigation of Near-Wellbore Effects in Hydraulic Fracturing, paper SPE 30506 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2225 October. 23. Abass, H.H. et al: Oriented PerforationsA Rock-Mechanics View, paper SPE 28555 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2528 September. 24. Snider, P .M., Hall, F and Whisonant, R.J. : Experiences With High.R., Energy Stimulations for Enhancing Near-Wellbore Conductivity, paper SPE 35321 presented at the 1996 SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico, Villahermosa, Mexico, 57 March. 25. Yew, C.H., Schmidt, J.H., and Li, Y.: On Fracture Design of Deviated Wells, paper SPE 19722 presented at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 811 October. 26. Robinson, B.M., Holditch, S.A., and Whitehead, W.S.: Minimizing Damage to a Propped Fracture by Controlled Flowback Procedures, JPT (June 1988) 753. 27. Barree, R.D. and Mukherjee, H.: Engineering Criteria for Fracture Flowback Procedures, paper SPE 29600 presented at the 1995 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 2022 March. 28. Mukherjee, H. et al.: Effect of Pressure Depletion on FractureGeometry Evolution and Production Performance, paper SPE 30481

presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2225 October. 29. Kamal, M.M., Braden, J.C., and Park, Heungjun: Use of PressureTransient Testing To Identify Reservoir-Damage Problems, paper SPE 24666 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 47 October. SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

ft 3.048* in. 2.54* md 9.869 233 psi 6.894 757

*Conversion factor is exact.

E01= m E+01= mm E04= m2 E03= MPa

Hemanta Mukherjee is Manager, Production Enhancement for West and South Africa, with Schlumberger Oilfield Services, currently posted to Luanda, Angola. His previous positions within Schlumberger were as Manager, Production Enhancement Gulf Coast, with Schlumberger Oilfield Services in New Orleans; as an area stimulation engineer with Dowell in Englewood, Colorado; and as a senior development engineer with Johnston-Macco Schlumberger in Sugarland, Texas. Before joining Schlumberger, he was with Gulf R&D Co. He holds a BS degree from the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India, and MS and PhD degrees from the U. of Tulsa, all in petroleum engineering. Mukherjee is coauthor of the upcoming SPE Monograph Multiphase Flow in Wells. He has served as a member of the Editorial Review Committee, on Annual Meeting Technical Committees, and as Program Chairman of the 1993 Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium.

MARCH 1999

59