IPTC-18155-MS

An Evaluation of Various Perforating Designs Performance in Reducing

Near Wellbore Friction during Fracturing
Ali Al-Momin, and Ali Al-Saihati, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2014, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10 –12 December 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted
to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax ⫹1-972-952-9435

Abstract
Establishing connectivity with the reservoir in a cased-hole cemented completion is a crucial parameter
for the success of fracturing operations. Numerous fracture stimulation treatments have failed due to the
failure to initiate the fracture or to place enough proppant along the hydraulically created fracture due to
an early screen-out caused by improper perforating design. This problem becomes more significant in the
case of unconventional resources exploration and development as these resources inherently require a high
treatment pressure coupled with a high fracturing gradient. Therefore, a well-engineered perforating
design is regarded as the first challenge to be overcome to ensure the success of a fracturing treatment.
This paper presents a comparative study among different perforating guns by different service
providers with different sizes in terms of reducing the near-wellbore pressure loss during fracturing
treatment. Moreover, various design parameters such as perforation phasing, density and perforating
interval were evaluated for several gas wells completed with proponent fracture in a giant field in Saudi
Arabia. The comparison is based upon analyzing the step-down rate tests and quantifying the contribution
of pressure loss due to entry friction to the total friction during the stimulation. The magnitude of the
treating pressure for various designs during the main fracturing treatments was also examined. Reservoirs
investigated include tight sand and unconventional gas bearing formations. Different techniques to
mitigate or reduce excessive near-wellbore friction are also presented.
This paper highlights Saudi Aramco’s successful experience with perforating to fracture both tight
sandstone and unconventional gas formations in onshore Saudi Arabia.

Introduction
Perforating design considerations for fracturing
Perforations are the means of communication between the wellbore and formation during the stimulation
and production phase of a well. The design of perforating considers several parameters, which include gun
size and type, charge type, shot per foot, perforating interval and phasing (M. J. Economides and K. G.
Nolte 2000). Other parameters include perforation diameter and penetration length. The optimum
perforating design for fracturing should minimize the treating pressure by minimizing the near-wellbore
2 IPTC-18155-MS

pressure loss, which could be caused by perforations, multiple competing fractures and tortuosity. Having
a high treatment has several consequences such as the increase in the cost of the treatment due to the need
of more horsepower, extending the pumping time, and limiting the pumping rate, which could affect the
amount of proppant to be placed in the fracture (Brady and Grace 2013).
Several studies have been conducted to optimize the perforating for fracturing that considers but is not
limited to the importance of perforation hole sizes compared to the length of perforation tunnels, the
consistency of casing hole size, the advantage of limited perforating length and the significance of the
clearance between perforating gun and the casing. A recent study showed that the use of frac charges
resulted in minimizing the perforation coefficient and generated a better consistency of casing hole size,
which resulted in reducing the treatment pressure while increasing the pumping rate (Brady and Grace
2013). The importance of the consistency of perforating hole size in reducing the near-wellbore friction
was address by Quattlebaum et al. (2012). By developing a simplified model to study the effect of hole
consistency, the authors found that the maximum local principle stress on the surface of the perforating
tunnel is significantly affected by the hole size, which, in turn, affects the fracture initiation pressure. The
results of several field cases presented in that paper showed that the higher the consistency of hole size
diameter the lower the treating pressure.

Typical perforating for fracturing

According to L. A. Behrmann and K. G. Nolte (1999), the ideal perforating for fracturing should minimize
the injection pressure and generate a single fracture with no tortuosity or turning to align with the preferred
fracture plane (PFP) at an attainable fracture initiation pressure. The authors also referred to a study by
Abbs, H. H. et al. (1994) that showed that 180° phasing oriented 30° degrees from PFP provide a good
communication between perforation and fracture. As the perforating angle deviates from PFP this will
result in increasing the fracture initiation fracture. The authors recommended that employing 60° phasing
in case 30° degrees from the PFP is not attainable using the 180° phasing. Based on the assumption that
only the perforations closer to the PFP will initiate the fracture the perforation density of 60° has to be
three times that one for 180°. One of the drawbacks of perforating at 60° phasing with higher shot density
has adverse effect in terms of micro-annulus creation. The authors suggest that choosing nonoriented
perforating with various phasing and density is a trade-off between fracture initiation pressure, initiation
of multiple fractures, tortuosity and destroying the cement bond, which is summarized in the table below:
L. A. Behrmann and K. G. Nolte (1999) provided a guideline for perforating for fracturing with regard
to perforation penetration length, perforated interval length and shot density as a function of hole
diameter. The authors suggested that a penetration of more than 4-6 in. into the formation is not needed
for fracturing purposes as the fracture initiates near the sand face toward the PFP. Also, the penetration
should be compromised to the hole size, which should be 8-10 times the size of the proppant to be placed.
For the perforated interval, the authors are in favor of limiting the length that helps in containing the
fracture height for tip screen out (TSO) design. As far as the shot density is concerned, it should be
determined based upon the casing hole diameter, injection rate per perforation, fluid type and the desired
friction due to perforations.

Basics of rate step-down test (SDT) principles, execution, analysis and limitations
SDT is basically a pre-fracturing diagnostic test during which an instantaneous abrupt reduction in the
pumping rate is performed at least three times before the pumping is shut-down. The main purpose of such
a test is to distinguish the basic components of near-wellbore pressure loss (NWBPL), namely: pressure
loss due to perforation and tortuosity. This is possible because of the rate dependence of different pressure
loss components where:
● Low rate dependency (Q1/2) shows tortuosity dominated pressure loss.
● High rate dependency (Q2) shows perforation friction dominated pressure loss.
IPTC-18155-MS 3

Figure 1—Improperly and properly designed rate step-down tests (modified from Leon et al. 2007)

Separating the contribution of NWBPL allows

the engineer to take the right remedial action to
eliminate or reduce the pressure loss during the
treatment. An important consideration during the
SDT is to make sure that the fracture dimension
does not change throughout the course of the test.
The following are guidelines for designing SDT
as per Leon et al. (2007) (Fig.1):
● It is recommended to perform four abrupt
reductions in flow rate and not to go below
three steps.
● The duration of each step should be between
10-20 sec. to ensure a stabilized rate and
pressure is achieved.
● The geometry or dimensions of fractures
should change a little during the test.
● It is recommend that drilling teams have Figure 2—SDT analysis (modified from M. J. Economides and K. G.
only one fluid in the fracture during the test Nolte 2000)
with, preferably, linear gel.
After performing the test according to the aforementioned guidelines, the bottom-hole pressure is
subtracted from the instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) at each injection rate to determine the total entry
friction magnitude. A plot of the total pressure entry (entry friction) vs. injection rate is constructed and
then the test data are fitted with two functions as per the equation below.
Eq. 1

The equations obtained are used to construct two different curves; one for the perforations and the other
for tortuosity, which subsequently are used to calculate the perforations and the tortuosity frictions at each
injection rate (Fig 2).
Reservoirs Geological Background
The major sandstone hydrocarbon reserves discovered to date in the Field-X onshore Saudi Arabia are
from the Lower Permian reservoir-A and the Early to Middle Devonian reservoir-B. Reservoir-A is the
principal sandstone hydrocarbon reservoir in the Southern Field-X while reservoir-B is the primary
reservoir to the north.
4 IPTC-18155-MS

Figure 3—Models by Company-A&B to estimate the pipe friction of 5wt% KCl flowing through a 3.92 in. carbon steel pipe

Reservoir-A
Reservoir-A is generally divided into two units: the upper-AA formation and the lower-AB formation.
These reservoir units are separated by a siltstone member, which is generally reddish to gray in color in
the Southern Field-X. This siltstone separator is well-developed in southern areas, but is poorly developed
to the north. The reservoir-A is missing in Central and Northern Field-X and thickens to the south.
Thickness ranges from 0 ft to nearly 1,600 ft. The Formation-AA has porosities ranging from 5-25% and
average around 12% in the pay zones. The Formation-AB porosities average approximately 6%.
Reservoir-B
Reservoir-B consists of fine-to-medium grained sandstones that lack the silica cementation that is
prevalent in other siliclastic reservoirs. Studies of several preserved reservoir-B samples have shown that
the primary mineral components are quartz sand grains and authigenic, fibrous illite clays. The reservoir-B
ranges in thickness from 290 ft to 475 ft in the Field-X and can be crudely divided into two units based
on log character. “Cleaner” looking sands, with few shale -siltstone sequences, characterize the lower unit.
The upper unit is characterized by “dirtier” looking sands, with several shale intercalations. B oth fining
and coarsening-upward sequences are evident in the upper unit. Reservoir quality is best developed in the
upper unit in Field-X. The average net pay is 190 ft and the average porosity is 12.5%. Porosities generally
range from 10-20% with porosities as high as 30% occurring in the upper part of the reservoir.
IPTC-18155-MS 5

Table 1—Modified from L. A. Behrmann and K. G. Nolte, 1999

TABLE 2-PERFORATING GUN TRADE-OFF. NOT ORIENTED. VERTICAL WELL. NO MICROANNULUS 1 ⴝ BEST. 3 ⴝ WORST

Gun Fracture Initiation Pressure Multiple Fracture Initiation Tortuosity Destroy Cement Bond

0°, 1 spf 3 1 3 1
180°, 1 spf 3 1 3 1
120°, 1.5 spf 2 2 2 2
60°. 3 spf 1 3 1 3

Uconventionals Reserviors
According to S. Hayton et al. (2010), Saudi Aramco uses the following working definition for “Tight
Gas”: Reserviors that do not flow at commercial rates using Saudi Aramco’s standard drilling and
completion procedures. The sands typically have ⬍12% porosity and ⬍1md permeability, and require
fracture stimulation. Details of each of the fields were presented by the authors.
Methodology

SDTs of several wells completed with proppant fracture into reservoir-A, -B, and several unconven-
tional reservoirs were collected and analyzed in this section. The parameters considered in the analysis
are: perforating phasing and density, gun size and type, perforating interval and the size and weight of
perforated casings. During the analysis, the value of the entry pressure was determined by subtracting the
instantaneous shut-in pressure from the flowing wellhead pressure at each rate to determine the friction
in the whole system, which, in turn subtracted from friction inside the pipe to get the value of NWB
friction. The bottom-hole pressure is either measured directly using down-hole gauges or by using a model
that has been calibrated by many data from down-hole gauges to estimated pipe friction of 5 wt% KCl,
which is the fluid normaly used for SDT, flowing through 3.92 in. carbon steel pipe (Fig 3 displays
examples of such models by Company-A&B). The value of NWBP vs. the corresponding rate is then fitted
using equation-1 to quantify the contribution of tortuosity and perforations to the total entry friction.
Since the SDT was conducted at various rates for each well, which were perforated at different SPF and
interval lengths, it requires the development of a normalized value of entry pressure considering the
aforementioned variables (i.e., rate, SPF and perforated interval length) to be able to compare them to each
other. Accordingly, the value of entry pressure at the maximum rate was multiplied by thickness and SPF
and divided by pumping rate. This normalized value was used as the basis of the comparison in this study.
The performance of different guns by Company A&B, along with various perforating designs, was
investigated. A summary of the analysis is shown separately for each reservoir.
Results Discussion
Reservoir-A
A total of 17 SDTs have been analyzed for wells completed into reservoir-A as shown in table-2. The
majority of the wells were perforated using 2 7/8 in. gun size at 60° and 6 SPF with few cases of using
3 3/8 in. gun shot at 180° and 5 to 6 SPF. The normalized value of NWB friction by pumping rate and
number of perforations was employed as the basis of comparison where the lower the value of this
parameter the better the gun and design performance in reducing NWB friction. Based upon the below
data, 60° phasing gives better results than 180° even though the 60° phasing was completed with smaller
gun size. To rank the performance of guns in reducing NWB friction, all guns with 2 7/8 in. size and shot
at 60° were compared. The comparison is shown in Table 3 and Figure 4 where Company-A abrasive
jetting and Company-B 17.5-gm gun outperformed the rest.
6 IPTC-18155-MS

Table 2—Performance Evaluation for Different Perforating Guns and Designs on Reservoir-A Wells

Table 3—Performance Evaluation for Different 2 7/8 in. Sized Guns Shot at 60° on Reservoir-A Wells

Figure 4 —Perforating Gun and Design Performance for Reservoir-A Wells

IPTC-18155-MS 7

Table 4 —Performance Evaluation for Different Perforating Guns and Designs on Reservoir-B Wells

Table 5—Performance Evaluation for Different 2 7/8 in. Sized Guns Shot at 60° on Reservoir-B Wells

Reservoir-B
23 wells completed into reservoir-B were considered in this analysis. Wells were perforated with variety
of phasing and gun size including 60° phasing with 2 7/8, 3 1/8 in. and 3 3/8 in. gun, 180° phasing with
2 7/8 and 3 3/8 in. gun and 120° phasing with 3 1/8 in. and 3 3/8 in. nozzle. Similar to reservoir-A, the
normalized NWP value was used as the comparison criterion. Table-4 summarizes the comparison for
reservoir-B wells. The analysis shows that 60° is better than 180° phasing at bigger gun size while 180°
is better at smaller gun size in terms of reducing the NWB friction. The Company-A 16-gm gun comes
at the top of list and gave better results when compared with abrasive getting (Table 5 and Fig 5).
8 IPTC-18155-MS

Figure 5—Perforating Gun and Design Performance for Reservoir-B Wells

Table 6 —Performance Evaluation for Different Perforating Guns and Designs on Unconventional Gas Wells

Table 7—Performance Evaluation for Different 2 7/8 in. Sized Guns Shot at 60° on Unconventional Wells

Unconventional Reservoirs
14 unconventional exploration wells were considered. The analysis shows that larger gun size at 60°
phasing generally gave better results compared to smaller gun size (Table-6). Company-A 16.9-gm gun
and Company-B 21-gm outperform other guns (Table 7 and Fig 6).
IPTC-18155-MS 9

Figure 6 —Perforating Gun and Design Performance for Unconventional Wells

Figure 7—Nature of NWB Friction on Reservoir-B Wells

Figure 8 —Nature of NWB Friction on Reservoir-A Wells

10 IPTC-18155-MS

Figure 9 —Recorded Pressure and Rate during the DataFrac

Figure 10 —Recorded pressure and rate during the injectivity test post the hydrajetting perforating

Analysis based on the nature of the near-wellbore pressure loss

For reservoir-B, the near-wellbore friction is a tortuosity dominant especially at low injection rate. For
most cases, the perforations become the main contributor to the NWLP friction at higher injection rate
(Fig 7).
On the other hand, for reservoir-A for the most part, the near-wellbore friction comes from the
perforations (Fig 8).
Remedial actions to eliminate/reduce the magnitude of NWB frication
before or during the main jobs
The problems of high near-wellbore friction are generally caused by perforations, NWB tortuosity,
microannulus and excessive multiple fracture accepting the fluid.
High near-wellbore (NWB) friction comes with several consequences such as the increase in the cost
of the treatment due to the need of more horsepower, extending the pumping time, and limiting the
pumping rate which could affect the amount of proppant to be placed in the fracture and in severe cases
could result in the inability to fracture which in could cause abortion of the treatment.
To pump the treatment successfully in a well with high NWB friction, one has to identify the source
of NWB friction and the required technique to mitigate the problem. Several techniques have been proven
IPTC-18155-MS 11

Figure 11—Recorded pressure and rate during the calibration test

Figure 12—Summary of injectivity test for sand slug case

to be successful in eliminating/reduce excessive NWB friction such as pumping small mesh size proppant
(sand slug) during the pad stage, hydrajetting and using acid in the prepad. Two successful cases in
reducing NWB friction — one by hydrajetting and the other with a sand slug pumped ahead of the
fracturing treatment are shown below.

Hydrajetting Case
The well is an S-Shaped cased hole completed into a sandstone reservoir with 5 ½ in. TBG and 7 in. liner
with 14,672 ft TVD. 30 ft of perforations were added under-balance with 3 3/8 in. guns at 6 SPF and 60°
phasing. During the DataFrac test, the maximum allowable surface treatment pressure of 12,000 psi at 4.0
bbl/min was reached before initiating the fracture. Several attempts to establish injectivity failed (Fig 9).
The decision was made to employ the hydrajetting technique to reduce NWB friction effect.
A 30 ft gross zone (partially overlapping pervious perforations) was perforated with 3.06 in. OD jetting
tool with three 3/16 in. jet nozzles phased at 120° ran on 2 in. HPCT. 100 bbl of sand-laden slurry
containing 40 lb/Mgal of liner gel with 0.5 lb/gal 20/40 proppant at rate of 3.0 bbl/min were pumped. To
examine the effectiveness of the hydrajetting, an injectivity test was performed resulted in a maximum rate
of 15 bbl/min at 11,000 psi (Fig 10).
The calibration test shown in Fig 11 was performed with 45 lb/Mgal cross-linked gel at maximum
treating pressure and rate of 8,955 psig and 40 bpm, respectively.
12 IPTC-18155-MS

Figure 13—The effect of sand slug in reducing NWB friction

Sand Slug Case

The well was completed as a modified monobore completion with 4 1/2 in. OD liner and 4 1/2 in. OD
upper tubing. The lower liner was cemented in place inside 7 in. liner. 20 ft interval was perforated using
2 7/8 in. gun at 6 SPF and 60 phasing. Several injectivity tests were performed and showed high injection
pressure approaching the completion limitation at 15 bbl/min (Fig 12).
To mitigate the high NWB friction, a hydrajetting was performed with minimal gain in injectivity. Two
techniques were considered to lower the friction during the main treatments which are using small mesh
bauxite (sinterblast)-angular bauxite and including HCl acid during the pre-pad. 1700 gal of 15% HCl was
injected as a pre-pad and did not result in any improvement while the sinterblast pumped as part of the
pad resulted in a 450 psi decrease in NWB pressure as shown in Fig 13.

Conclusion
● The near-wellbore friction comes from the perforations for reservoir-A for the most
part.
● For reservoir-B, the near-wellbore friction is a tortuosity dominant especially at low
injection rate.
● Injecting a sinterblast during the pad fluid proved to be beneficial in reducing the
treatment pressure by a significant value.
● Hydrajetting is a good remedial action in the case of no or low injectivity, and was
experienced ahead of the fracture treatment.
● For reservoir-A, 60° phasing gives better results than 180° even though the 60°
phasing was completed with a smaller gun size.
● The analysis for reservoir-B shows that 60° is better than 180° phasing at bigger gun
size while 180° is better at smaller gun size in terms of reducing the NWB friction.
The Company-A 16-gm gun comes at the top of list and gave better results when
compared with abrasive getting.
● For unconventional wells a larger gun size at 60° phasing generally gave better
results compared to smaller gun size; and Company-A 16.9-gm gun and Compa-
ny-B 21-gm outperform other guns.
IPTC-18155-MS 13

References
1. M.J. Economides and K.G. Nolte. June 9, 2000 Reservoir Stimulation. Third Edition
2. Brady, T. and Grace, T. (2013, September 30). Frac-Perforating Charge Maintains Treating
Pressure while Increasing Pumping Rate: A Case Study in South Texas. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi: 10.2118/166238-MS
3. Quattlebaum, C., Borgen, K.L., Xue, Z., and Wilkinson, P.B. (2012, January 1). Optimizing
Perforating Charge Design for Stimulation. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/
159085-MS
4. Behrmann, L.A. and Nolte, K.G. (1999, December 1). Perforating Requirements for Fracture
Stimulations. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/59480-PA
5. S. Hayton, SPE, C.J. Heine, and B. Gratto (2010, January 24). Tight Gas Exploration in Saudi
Arabia. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi.org/10.2118/1316065-MS