I Society of petroleum Engineers I
SPE 39453
Perforating Requirements for Fracture Stimulations
L. A. Behrmann, SPE, Schlumberger Perforating and Testing Center, K. G. Nolte, SPE, Schlumberger
Copyright 1998, Sosiefy ef Petrofaum Enghaars, Inc.
This paper was pmpamd for presmtatien at the 1!398 SPE Intematfonal Symposium
Fomation Damage Control hefd in Lafayelte, Louisiana, 1s-19 Febmmy 1s98.
This paper was selected for pfesentatlon ty an SPE Progmm Committee feflo~g
informati~ Mnlahad in an abstract subfnlttad by b atior(a).
ravlaw of
Centants et tie papar, as
presented, hava not bea ravlewad by the Society of Petmhum Engfneera and are subjad to
mrmefion ty the author(s), The material, as pw~ted, deas not nacessarify raffast any
~silion of the Sosfafy of Petmkum Engineers, ffs officers, er mmk. Papers premnted at
SPE meetings are subject to publisatien review by Editorial Committees of the Swbty
Petroleum Engineers. Elesfmnb raprodueflon, dfatrbutfm, er storage of my part of this ~r
for cemmerclal purpcses without the tiften ccmsent cf the Socbty d Petmbum Englneera is
prohibtiad. Permlssbn to rapmdum h prrnt is restricted to an abstract et not mora than m
werds; illustrations may not be cqIied, The abstract must srmtain mnapicueua
acknowledgment of where and by *M
Box 833836, ~ardsm, TX 7506W36.
the papsr was preaantad. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
U.S.A. fax 01-972-eS2-9435.
Background
Perforating provides the means of communication
between the wellbore and the reservoir, and in a fracture-
stimulated reservoir, the perforation is the fluid conduit
between the fracture and the wellbore. Within this paper,
fracturing implies using proppant. However, in general the
presentation also applies to acid fracturing. The choice of
perforating parameters for 1) size and type of gun, 2) type of
charge, 3) shot density, 4) shot phasing, 5) interval length
and 6) gun orientation can have a significant affect on the
quality of the subsequent fracturing or matrix stimulated
treatment (Nolte, 1982, 1988, Daneshy, 1973, Warpinski,
1983). For the combination of gravel packing and fracturing
(frac and pack), perforating practices are governed by the
gravel-packing considerations. These considerations are
discussed in the “Frac and Pack and High-Rate Water Packs”
section.
The objective of perforating for fracturing is to choose
perforating parameters that minimize near-wellbore pressure
drops during both the fracturing operation and production
with limited-entry fracture placement being an exception.
Some of these near-wellbore effects are perforation friction,
microannulus pinch points from gun phasing misalignment,
multiple competing fractures and fracture tortuosity caused
by a curved fracture path (Romero, et al., 1995). Several of
these near-wellbore effects from Romero, et al. are illustrated
in Figs. 1 and 2. For any type of well treatment, there are
two additional perforation-related parameters that may also
affect the choice of the perforating system: 1) the integrity of
the cementisandface hydraulic bond (microannulus) after
perforating and 2) residual fractured-sand grains in the
perforation cavity, particularly for a matrix treatment.
Dowell
Effective matrix treatments require communication through
en most of the perforations. This can be achieved by either
effective underbalance (Behrmann and McDonald, 1996),
extreme overbalance (see “Extreme Overbalance Stimula-
tion” section), or bailout. If a reservoir is perforated with
insufficient underbalance to remove most of the perforation
of
sand debris, then fluid injection may cause the comminuted
sand to create an external filter cake on the perforation cavity
during fluid injection. This was first observed on a water
injector and later on extreme overbalanced tests (Behrmann
and McDonald, 1996). Two unique characteristics were
observed in these tests: productivity was not affected, and
this “filter cake” was also an injection pressure barrier with
an estimated pressure drop of more than 1000 psi. The
existence of comminuted sand in the perforation cavity limits
infectivity and increases the injection pressure. High pump
rates and high fluid viscosity enhance these effects, which are
more important for extreme overbalance stimulation.
A rnicroannulus is usually present after perforating and/or
immediately after pumping begins. Maintaining a good bond
during the breakdown phase can be problematic because of a
hydraulically propagated microannulus that is analogous to
hydraulic fracturing, as discussed in Appendix A. Fracturing
then proceeds as though from an open hole with some defects
(perforations).. that .rnay be near the preferred hydraulic
fracture plane (PFP). Most laboratory fracturing studies have
taken extraordinary measures to avoid a microannulus by
epoxying the casing to the rock, using O-rings around the
perforations, etc. ~us, the generality of these laboratory
findings must be viewed with caution. The magnitude of the
rnicroannulus is dependent on the wellbore fluid and size and
type of perforating gun (Table 1).
Table l-Perforating Parameters Affecting Microannulus
Parameter Promotes
Microannulus
Capsule gun Yes
Hollow carrier gun Modest
Small gun-to-casing clearance Yes
Liquid in wellbore Yes
No
Low shot density
Gas in wellbore No
349
2 L. A. Behrrnann, K.G. Nolte
Restriction Area
we’’bore—————
Channel to
Fracture Wings
Fimre l-Near Wellbore Microannulus Pinch Poink
(F;om SPE 30506)
Fracture
Plane
at Infinity
Wellbore
Fracture Reorientation
Lg
Figure 2-Near Wellbore Fracture Tortuosity
(From SPE 30506)
Except when gas is the wellbore fluid, perforating
debonds a portion of the cementisandface hydraulic bond.
This is a result of the loading of the wellbore fluid from the
gun swell (charge/explosive coupling for capsule charges),
passage of the perforating jet through the wellbore fluid and
expulsion of the explosive detonation gases into the wellbore
fluid. For hollow carrier guns, the debonding may be a
function of the gun phasing. Figures 3 and 4 are examples of
cement debonding observed in large scale block tests
(Behrmann and Elbel, 1991 and Mason, et al., 1994).
An ideal perforation for fracture initiation would have a
minimum injection pressure, initiate only a single fracture
(either a dominant single or hi-wing), and generate a fracture
with minimum tortuosity (turning from the initiated fracture
into the PFP) at an achievable fracture initiation pressure.
The following sections provide recommendations on how
best to achieve this ideal perforation. In the following
sections, a vertical well is one with deviation less than 30
degrees.
350
SPE 39453
Perforation Phasing for Hard-Rock Hydraulic
Fracturing
No microannulus, vertical wells. For the following
discussion, the PFP is assumed to be vertical and therefore
can connect directly over a significant distance for a vertical
well. When the PFP is not vertical, as can occur near a
significant fault, the PFP deviates from the axis of a vertical
well. For this case, the “Deviated and Horizontal Wells”
section should be consulted.
Dry gas wells, wells swabbed of liquid prior to
perforating, wells shot with small hollow carrier guns, and
wells shot with low (1 to 2 spf) shot density hollow carrier
guns are potential candidates for maintaining good
cementisandface bonds. With a “perfect” cement bond,
fractures are forced to initiate from the perforations which
should eliminate additional fracture initiation sites around the
sandface. Most laboratory hydraulic fracture experiments
have been conducted with a sealed annulus with the only
fluid entry to the reservoir through artificial (drilled or cast)
perforations. Thus, reference to these experiments should
provide insight on how to perforate wells with a good
hydraulic bond. However, these results should be used with
caution if a microannulus is likely after perforating or during
breakdown of the formation.
One of the papers describing laboratory fracture
experiments (Abass, et al., 1994), shows that 180-degree
phased perforations oriented within 30 degrees of the PFP
provide good communication between the perforations and
the fracture. The good connection minimizes the multiple
fracture overlap and turning tortuosity and therefore
minimizes restriction of fracture width. As the perforation-to-
PFP angle increases, the fracture initiation pressure increases
because of the horizontal stress difference. Also, when the
fracture initiates at the perforations, it must turn to eventually
align with the PFP and the near-wellbore fracture width
decreases. This work suggests that if a 180-degree phased
gun cannot be oriented within 30 degrees of the PFP, then the
use of a 60-degree phased gun is recommended for a good
fracture connection. It is assumed that only those perforations
closest to the PFP initiate a fracture and the shot density of
the 60-degree phased gun must be 3 times that of a 180-
degree phased gun to achieve the same number of holes
directly linked to the fracture. This assumption also implies
that multiple parallel fractures do not initiate for this
wellbore-stress aligned case. However, the increased shot
density of the 60-degree phased gun would probably negate
the assumption of a minimal microannulus. Assuming equal
perforation areas open in direct communication with the
primary fracture, Table 2 gives the trade-off between
different nonoriented phased guns.
SPE 39453 Perforating Requirements for Fracture Stimulations
Table 2- Perforating Gun Trade-Off, Not Oriented,
Vertical Well, No Microannulus
1 = best, 3 = worst
Gun Fracture Multiple Tortuosity Destroy
Initiation Fractures Cement
Pressure Bond
o“, 1 Spf 3 1 3 1
180=’,1 Spf 3 1 3 1
1200, 1.5 Spf 2 2 2 2
60°,3 spf 1 3 1 3
Selection of the optimum gun depends on weighting
factors assigned to the different parameters, which becomes
subjective and dependent on personal experience. For equal
weighting, all guns are equivalent. However to minimize the
initiation of multiple fractures and if the possibility of higher
fracture initiation pressure is acceptable, then a zero or 180-
degree phased gun could be used but could give proppant
entrance problems for hard rock at pinch points should a
rnicroannulus exist, Fig. 1. In all cases, the casing hole
diameter should be chosen to give an acceptable injection
pressure drop (see “Other Perforating Considerations For
Fracturing”). Because injection rates are generally greater
than production rates and proppant enlarges the perforations
and erodes neer-wellbore restrictions, the production area
open to flow should generally be adequate.
The literature indicates other perforating strategies can be
applied. For example, Stadulis (1995) discusses the use of
zero-degree phased guns at 1 spf with proppant slugs to
prevent initiation or propagation of competing multiple
fractures and near-wellbore screen outs. (It is not clear if the
observed success was from the use of low shot density,
closed microannulus or proppant slugs.) It is not known if a
dominant single or hi-wing fracture propagates with zero-
degree phased guns. A hi-wing fracture must initiate, but the
wing opposite the perforations can have limited flow rate and
may screen out because of the restricted flow around the
microannulus. The asymmetry for a dominant single wing
fracture offsets the drainage pattern from the well location.
To minimize multiple fractures using zero-degree phasing,
the lower shot density can help maintain cement/sandface
integrity; whereas the use of a 60-degree phased gun at 6 spf
(providing the same 1 ft spacing between perforations along
any azimuthal plane) will be more detrimental to cement
debonding and thus increase the potential for initiation of
multiple fractures.
Deviated (deviation greater than 30 degrees) and
horizontal wells typically have an open rnicroannulus or
channel because of gravity, independent of the perforator.
The perforating requirements for these wells are discussed in
the “Deviated and Horizontal Wellbores” section.
Open Microannulus Vertical Wellbore/Vertical
Fractures. The presence of a microannuhrs promotes
fractures from the sandface, independent of the perforations,
unless the perforations are within about 10 degrees of the
35
3
PFF (Behrmann and Elbel, 1991). Fractures can also be
initiated from perforations that are within about 30 degrees of
the PFP. Multiple initial fractures are encouraged from these
perforations between 10 and 30 degrees from the PFP if
sufficient fluid is allowed to move around and pressurize the
microannulus. However, maintaining significant flow, and
hence width, in more than one fracture is inherently unstable
because of the increased pressure requirement. The pressure
drop across the multiple fractures increases by the square root
of the number of fractures (Nolte, 1987). When the fracture
does not originate from the perforations, the flow path
connects through the microannulus. The annulus separates
from the sandface to allow displacement continuity with the
fracture width. However, as shown by Fig. 1, geometric
effects result in pinch points at the fracture entrance that can
cause large pressure drops for fluid flow and near-wellbore
proppant bridging. These points are subject to enhanced
erosion, with their endurance depending on the rock
hardness. Fracture tortuosity should not exist for a vertical
wellbore in a normally stressed environment. Table 3 gives
the fracture trade-offs versus gun phasing for a normally
stressed vertical well (deviation less than 30 degrees). The
shot densities given in Table 3 are relative only.
Determination of required shot density is given in the “Other
Perforating Considerations for Fracturing” section.
Table 3- Perforating Gun Trade-Off, Vertical Well,
Not Oriented. Microannulus
1 = best,’4 = worst
I Gun Fracture I Micro- Multi~le I
Initiation Annuhss Fract~res
Pressure Pinch Points
0“, 1 Spf 3 4 1
180°, 1 spf 3 3 2
90”,2 Spf 2 3 3
120”, 1.5 Spf 1 2 3
60°,3 spf 1 1 4
Selection of the optimum gun depends on weighting
factors assigned to the different parameters, which once
again is subjective and dependent on personal experience.
For equal weighting, either 120 or 60-degree phased guns
should be used. If one is more concerned about a pinch point
than initiating multiple fractures, then a 60-degree gun
should be used. However, the use of a 60-degree gun may
potentially initiate more multiple fractures and will require
twice the shot density of a 120-degree phased gun since only
one of three perforations will be connected to the fracture.
Other strategies are reported in the literature. For
example, modification of the pad with high pump rate, use of
high viscosity fluid and use of proppant slugs (Aud, 1994;
Cleary, 1993; Stadulis, 1995) have been used to theoretically
control near wellbore screen-outs by restricting fhrid
communication around the microannulus to reduce pinch
points, tortuosity and multiple fractures.
4 L. A. Behnnann, K.G. Nolte
Deviated and Horizontal WeIlbores/Vertical Fracture.
The desired fracture geometry for an arbitrarily oriented
deviated well is to initiate a single hi-wing fracture along the
perforated length of the wcllbore that then gradually turns
into the PFP. If the wellbore is in the PFP, then the fracture
initiates from the top/bottom perforations, and thus, 180-
degree guns oriented upJdown are recommended. The use of
oriented 180-degree phased guns has successfully been used
by ARCO on deviations up to 65 degrees (Pearson, et al.,
1992; Pospisil and Pearson, 1995; Vincent and Pearson,
1995). The guns were aligned in the plane of minimum
tangential compressive stress (Yew, et al., 1988, 1989, 1993).
Recent laboratory experiments by van de Ketterij (1996)
confirms these field observations. If the stress direction is not
known, then a vertical, up/down orientation is suggested. See
the following section to ensure that the casing hole diameter
on top meets the required size.
As the wellbore is rotated azimuthally about the PFP, the
length of the intersection of the PFP with the wellbore
decreases with a minimum occurring at a 90-degree rotation
(the PFP and the plane through the top-bottom of the
wellbore are at 90 degrees). The perforated interval should
be continually decreased as the cornbination...ofl.. wgl
deviation and azimuth becomes less favorable. For more
favorable orientations, 10 ft perforated intervals would be
reasonable to minimize the initiation of nonlinking multiple
fractures. For wellbore deviation greater than about 75
degrees(horizontal well), perforations should be clustered in_
a short length, less than 3 ft with maximum shot density and
multiple phase angles to maximize perforation
communication with the fracture (Abass, et al., 1992, 1994).
This limited interval, with sufficient zonal isolation from the
cement, enhances the propagation of only one dominant
fracture. Staged multiple fractures have been successful in
horizontal wells drilled perpendicular to the PFP
(Baumgartner, et al., 1993; Chambers, et al., 1995; Abou-
Sayed et al., 1995).
Other Perforating Considerations for Fracturing
Penetration depth. Perforation penetration beyond 4 to
6 in. (10 to 15 cm) into the formation is not required for
fracturing because fracture initiation from a perforation
generally begins near the sandface and propagates toward the
preferred fracture plane (Behrmann and Elbel, 1991). Gun
performance for penetration should be compromised in favor
of casing hole size. Size requirements have been adopted
from gravel packing (Gruesbeck and Collins, 1982). The
general requirement is for the minimum casing hole diameter
to exceed 6 times the proppant diameter. A ratio of 8 to 10
times larger than the average proppant diameter should be
generally used because of variance between nominal and
actual hole diameters, gun positioning, and variation in
proppant size. Manufactured proppant is highly biased
toward larger diameters (lower mesh range) to maximize its
permeability. For these proppants, the minimum casing hole
diameter should be sized for the size of the lower mesh (e.g.,
352
SPE 39453
16 mesh for the 16 to 30 mesh).
Perforated interval. Limiting the perforated interval
was previously discussed for deviated wells. Even when the
perforated portion of the well is nominally aligned with the
PFP, consideration should be given to limiting the perforated
interval, particularly for relative thick sections that most
likely will be covered by the propped fracture. For example,
a 60[) deviation between the well and PFP over 100 ft
provides a 10-ft offset and the potential for more than one
dominant fracture. Detrimental multiple fractures occurs
when they overlap causing their width to decrease in the
overlapped region. This region is likely near the center of the
perforated zone. Assuming vertical coverage of a zone by the
propped fracture, the limiting effects for reducing the interval
are achieving sufficient hole density and the resulting
converging flow for the subsequent production. Another
consideration for limiting the perforated section near the
center of a zone is to assist vertical confinement of a tip
screenout treatment (TSO). The limited section increases the
vertical exposure of the slurry to fluid loss, which increases
the concentration and promotes competent bridging during
the increased pressure portion of the TSO.
__Large stress contrasts. Large horizontal stress contrasts
favor 60-degree phased guns to minimize the perforation-to-
PFP alignment. Lack of alignment increases the fracture
initiation pressure and enhances the microannulus effect.
Shot density and hole diameter. Minimum shot densitv.
is determined by the perforation casing hole diameter,
injection rate per perforation, desired perforation friction
pressure and fluid properties. The perforation friction
pressure for noncrosslinked fluids is given by the following
equation:
PPipsi) = 0.237 * p * [q/(CJ * D2)]2, ............................(1)
were p is fluid density in lbrn/gal, q is injection rate in
bbl/min/perforation, C,l is. the dimensionless discharge
coefficient, and D is the perforation casing diameter in
inches. Lord et al. (1994) provide tables of C,l for different
perforation sizes and fluid types plus an additional pressure
drop for crosslinked gels. Shah et al. (1996) gave firther
correlations with viscosity for linear polymer solutions,
crosslinked gels and fracturing slurries. Figure 5 gives the
injection pressure drop versus casing hole diameter for water
based systems where C,iis given by:
Cd =(1 –e-22D’v”l )0’4 ...................................... . . . . . (2)
where p is the apparent viscosity in cp.
Unless a perforating gun is centralized, the perforation
casing hole diameters are a function of gun phasing. This
means that the injection rate is different for different
perforation diameters. For example, a crosscasing perforation
diameter equal to 0.7 of the near-casing perforation diameter
has 0.49 the injection rate of the near-ctiing perforation. An
SPE 39453 Perforating Requirements for Fracture Stimulations
average perforation dig_netcr can be calculated as follows:
i=”
<D>={ ~~;/n}O’s ..............................................(3)
in1
where n is the number of effective casing holes.
Figure 6 provides typical hole size variation resulting
from gun-to-casing clearance, For specific gun and casing
systems, the service company should provide data on the
variation in casing entrance hole size for different values of
clearance. Also, during the fracture treatment, the hole
entrance becomes rounded increasing the discharge
coefficient. The hole size may also increase from erosion by
the frac sand (Shah et al., 1996). Both effects decrease
perforation entrance friction.
The hydraulic horsepower and surface treating pressure
limits determine the maximum permissible treating rate, Q.
The number of perforations in contact with the fracture
determines the average injection rate per perforation. For O-
and 180-degree phased guns, all perforations should
contribute to the fracture. For a 120-degree phase gun, only
two-thirds of the perforations will likely communicate with
the fracture, and for a 60-degree phased gun only one-third of
the perforations are likely effective. Appendix B provides an
example calculation to determine the minimum required
number of shots and thus shots-per-foot for a given pump rate
and perforated interval. For an acceptable perforation
friction, one can trade off casing hole diameter and shot
density for a given total injection rate. Except for limited-
entry treatments, the perforation friction should be
minimized (e.g., 25 psi) to reduce unnecessary fluid shear
and proppant damage.
Frac and Pack and High-Rate Water Packs
Perforating requirements for frac-packs and high-rate water
packs are the same as for an internal gravel pack (IGP). This
is to assure a good gravel pack if the planned fracture
placement is not completed successfully. Perforating
requirements for a gravel pack have been driven by the need
for a minimum production pressure drop through the
casing/cement tunnel that contains the packed gravel. If tines
from the perforation andor formation move into this tunnel
during production and are not expelled into the wellbore, the
gravel permeability is reduced and the pressure drop
increases. An optimum gun for an IGP would give maximum
area open to flow through the casing with the minimum hole
diameter required for gravel placement. A gun with shots
phased every 60 or 45 degrees is desired. Depending on
expected flow rate per perforation (required minimum
pressure drop), guns using big hole charges at 12, 16 and 21
spf would bc used. Because of the low strength of sand-
producing formations, large fracture widths with a
corresponding large microannulus are created, and minimize
pinch points. A treatment design and execution objective
should be a successful TSO fracture that packs-back into the
gravel pack to ensure the large microannulus is also packed
353
5
and creates an external gravel pack. The external pack
provides a highly conductive path between the fracture and
perforation and is a primary benefit of frac-packs. Issues of
multiple fractures and tortuosity do not arise because of the
erosive nature of the pumped fluid and gravel on the weak
formation. To achieve a minimum injection rate per
perforation, the frac-packed interval should not exceed about
50 ft. However, the use of alternate path screens has extended
the frac-packed interval to hundreds of feet ( Jones, et al.,
1997). Consistent with the goal of achieving a competent
IGP, if tie fracture placement is not completed successfully,
standard practice is to perforate the complete gravel-packed
section.
Fracturing for Sand Control Without Gravel Pack
Screens
Fracturing for sand control without gravel pack screens can
be accomplished by pretreating the formation or post treating
the proppant with resin, pumping curable-resin-coated
proppant an~or pumping chopped fibers with the proppant.
Except for a resin pretreatment, these techniques fix or
control proppant flowback and provide a filter to prevent
sand production. Because there is no gravel in the
casing/cement tunnel to restrict flow, the perforation
requirements are different than for frac-pack operations. The
perforating objective, beyond hole size for the proppant, is to
eliminate any nonessential perforations that could produce
formation sand. Therefore, for all well deviations, a limited
perforated section, (e.g. 20 ft or less) with either O- or 180-
degree phased guns, ideally aligned with the PFP determined
before the treatment, are recommended. As with a frac-pack,
a design and execution objective should be to achieve a TSO
that packs back to fill the expanded microannulus with
proppant, and for the screenless case, with the proppant
treated for flowback control to create a competent external-
pack that controls the formation sand. Again, because of the
weak rock, the pumped fluids wash away any near-wellbore
restrictions. Because symmetric fracture wings are not a
consideration for short fractures, there is no obvious
preference for 180-over O-phased guns with the same shot
density.
Extreme Overbalance Stimulation
Extreme overbalance (EOB) has been defined as either the
application of a very high overbalance pressure during the
perforating process (EOP) or a very high pressure “surging”
of existing perforations. Other names have also been used:
Rapid Overpressured Perforation Extension (ROPE) by
ARCO and “high energy” stimulation by Marathon. EOB
utilizes pressurized gas (usually nitrogen) to inject various
fluid systems into the formation at pressure gradients from
1.4 to 2.0 psi/ft. The primary objective is to create fractures
either as a prehydraulic fracture treatment or as a dynamic
fluid diversion (Hand.cen et al., 1993, Dees and Handren,
1993).
Early publications (Handren et al., 1993) suggested that
6 L. A. Behnnann, K.G. Nolte
effective multiple fractures were created from all
perforations. However, additional full-scale laboratory
fracture initiation experiments (Behrmann and McDonald,
1996, Willson, 1995) plus field tests (Snider, 1996) confirm
that although fractures may initiate from many perforations,
only a single hi-wing fracture is propagated from those
perforations nearest the PFP. Furthermore, there is no
evidence of the initiation of parallel multiple fractures. All
fractures initiate from the perforations, with the primary
fracture from the perforations nearest the PFP. It is assumed
that the sudden pressurization of the wellbore casing closes
any microannuhzs prior to hydraulic communication away
from the perforations. The high fracture pressure gradients
required are a result of at least three events. First, the
dynamic fracture initiation is greater than static fracture
initiation; second, the near wellbore pore pressure does not
increase as much as in a static injection; and third, residual
“crushed” sand debris in the perforation tunnel restricts both
fluid injection and pressurization of the perforation. These
effects result in required pressures 2 to 3 times greater than
conventional hydraulic fracturing.
Because experiments show no microannulus effect or
parallel multiple fractures, only tortuosity must be
considered. For a vertical well, a misaligned O-degree phased
gun would be the least acceptable, whereas 60-or 120-degree
phased guns provide the least tortuous path (Table 2).
However, Petitjean et al., (1995) reports mitigating the
tortuosity by minimizing the use of liquid to that necessary
for fracture initiation and using the nitrogen gas to extend the
fracture and erode any near wellbore tortuosity. This should
be applicable for both vertical and deviated wells. Also,
Snider et al., (1996) report the use of a proppant carrier to-
erode near wellbore tortuosity and improve near-wellbore
fracture conductivity, however the fracture width is generally
insufficient for proppant entry, (Petetjean, et al., 1995)..
In general, perforating considerations for EOB in vertical
wells are similar to those given for no microannulus, The
perforating recommendations for deviated and horizontal
wells are also similar.
A detailed discussion of extreme overbalance perforating
is in “The Schlunzberger Oilfield Review,” (Autumn 1996).
References
Abass, H.H., Saeed, H., Meadows, D.L.: “Nonplanar
Fracture Propagation From a Horizontal Wellbore:
Experimental Study,” paper SPE 24823, 1992
Abass, H.H., Meadows, D.L., Brumlt, J.L., Hedayati, S.,
Venditto, J.J.: “ Oriented Perforations-A Rock Mechanics
View,” paper SPE 28555, 1994
Abou-Sayed, 1.S., Schueler, S., Ehrl, E., Hendricks, W.:
“Multiple Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation in a Deep
Horizontal Tight Gas Well,” paper SPE 30532, 1995
Aud, W.W,, et al.: “The Effect of Viscosity on Near-
Wellbore Tortuosity and Premature Screenouts,” paper SPE
28492, 1994
Baumgartner, W. E., Shlyapobersky, J., Abou-Sayed, 1.S.,
354
SPE 39453
Jacquier, R.C.: “Fracture Stimulation of a Horizontal Well in
a Deep, Tight Gas Reservoi~ A Case History From Offshore
The Netherlands,” paper SPE 26795, 1993
Behrmann, L.A., E1bel, J.L.: “Effect of Perforations on
Fracture Initiation,” JPT (May 1991) 608-615
Behrmann, L.A., McDonald, B.: “Underbalance or
Extreme Overbalance,” paper SPE 31083, 1996
Chambers, M.R., Mueller, M.M., Grossmann, A.: “Well
Completion Design and Operations for a Deep Horizontal
Well With Multiple Fractures,” paper SPE 30417, 1995
Cleary, M.P., et al.: “Field Implementation of Proppant
Slugs to Avoid Premature Screen-Out of Hydraulic Fractures
With Adequate Proppant,” paper SPE 25892, 1993
Daneshy, A.A.: “Experimental Investigations of
Hydraulic Fracturing Through Perforations,” JPT (Oct. 1973)
1201-1206
Dees, J.M., Handren, P.J.: “A New Method of
Overbalance Perforating and Surging of Resin for Sand
Control,” paper SPE 26545, 1993
Grieibeck, C., Collins, R.E.: “Particle Transport Through
Perforations,” SPEJ (Dec. 1982) 857-65
Handren, P.J., Jupp, T.B., Dees, J.M.: “Overbalance
Perforating and Stimulation Method for Wells,” paper SPE
26515, 1993
Jones, L.G,, Tibbles, R.J., Myers, L., Bryant, D., Hardin,
J., Hurst, G.: “Gravel Packing Horizontal Wellbores with
Leak-Off Using Shunts,” paper SPE 38640, 1997
Lord, D.L., Shah, S.N., Rein, R.G., Lawson III, J.T.:
“Study of Perforation Friction Pressure Employing a Large-
Scale Fracture “Simulator,” paper SPE 28508, 1994
Mason, J.N., Behrmann, L.A., Dees, J.M., Kessler, N.:
“Block Testi Model ””the–-Nem-W-ellbore in a Perforated
Sandstone,” paper, SPE 28554, 1994
Nolte, K.G.: “Fracture Design Considerations Based on
Pressure Analysis,” paper SPE 10911, 1982
Nolte, K.G.: “Discussion of Influence of Geologic
Discontinuities on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation,” JPT
(August 1987)
Nolte, K.G.: “Application of Fracture Design Based on
Pressure Analysis,” SPEPE (Feb. 1988)31-42
Pearson, C.M., Bond, A.J., Eck, M.E., Schmidt, J.H.:
“Results of Stress-Oriented Perforating in Fracturing
Deviated Wells,” JPT (June 1992) 10-18
Petitjean, L., Couet, B., Abel, J.C., Schmidt, J.H.,
Ferguson, K.R.: “Well - Productivity Improvement Using
Extreme Overbalanced Perforating and Surging-Case
History,” paper SPE 30527, 1995
Pospisil, G., Pearson, C.M.: “Impact of Oriented
Perforating on Fracture Stimulation Treatments: Kuparuk
River Field, Alaska,” paper SPE 29645, 1995
Romero, J., Mackl M.G:, Elbel, J.L.: “Theoretical Model
and Numerical Investigation of Near-Wellbore Effects in
Hydraulic Fracturing,” paper SPE 30506, 1995
Shah, S. N., et al: “New Correlations for Perforation
Pressure Loss,” GRI Technical Summary, GRI-96/0208,
1996
SPE 39453 Perforating Requirements for Fracture Stimulations
Snider, P.M., Hall, F.R,, Whisonant, R.J.: “Experiences
With High Energy Stimulations for Enhancing Near-
Wellbore Conductivity,” paper SPE 35321, 1996
Stadulis, J.M.: “Development of a Completion Design to
Control Screenouts Caused by Multiple Near-Wellbore
Fractures,” paper SPE 29549, 1995
van de Ketterij, R.G.: “Raw Data of Hydraulic Fracturing
Model Tests-Series 5,” test report, Delft Univ. of Tech.
(April 1996)
Vincent, M.C., Pearson, C.M.: “The Relationship
Between Fractured Well Performance and Well Deviation,”
paper SPE 29569, 1995
Warpinsky, N.R.: “Investigation of the Accuracy and
Reliability of Insitu Stress Measurements Using Hydraulic
Fracturing in Perforated Cased Holes,” 24[h U.S. Symp. on
Rock Mech., June 1983
Willson, S.M.: “Maximizing Completions Efficiency
Through High Overbalanced Perforating,” report CEA 61
Phase I, TerraTek (Feb. 1995)
Yew, C,H., Li, Y.: “Fracturing of a Deviated Well,”
Production Eng. (Nov. 1988) 429-437
Yew, C.H., Schmidt, J.H., Li, Y. “On Fracture Design of
Deviated Wells,” paper SPE 19722, 1989
Yew, C.H., Mear, M.E., Chang, C.C., Zhang, X.C.: “On
Perforating and Fracturing of Deviated Cased Wellbores,”
paper SPE 26514, 1993
Appendix A
Propagating A Microannulus During Formation
Breakdown. For normal completion practices, the creation
of a rnicroannulus should be anticipated during the
breakdown process. The microannulus results from the same
mechanics that govern the propagation of a hydraulic
fracture, but on a smaller scale and confined to the annular
circumference of the cement’s interface with the well. The
affected annular interface can either be that of the cement
and the casing or the cement and the formation. The
formation interface is more prospective because of the
mudcake remaining between the cement and formation.
A hydraulic fracture, or a rnicroannulus, can propagate
when fluid of sufficient pressure energizes a prospective flaw
and the flaw is embedded in a deformable environment.
Flaws of this type exist in the cement interfaces and around
perforation tunnels and are in communication with the
wellbore fluid. These flaws can originate in the mudcake,
which can rehydrate by capillary action from the wellbore
fluid or in a region of mechanical alteration around the
perforation tunnel. As the wellbore is pressurized during
breakdown, the fluid in the prospective flaw is also
pressurized, increasing the width of the flaw by compressing
the material surrounding the flaw and allowing more fluid to
enter and extend the flaw. For the microannulus, the relevant
surrounding material is the rock containing the wellbore and
the casing confining the cement. Increased fluid pressure in
the annulus compresses the rock and enlarges the wellbore
radius. Similarly, the casing radius changes as the internal
355
7
pressure and external-annular pressure change. The
deformation of the cement sheath is relatively small and
could be considered as part of the rock containing the
wellbore. The annular width results from the combined radial
deformation of the borehole and casing.
The evolution of the flaw’s geometry is similar to that for
a hydraulic fracture originating from a point source of
injected fluid.
1. The flaw opens and propagates when the energizing
pressure exceeds a “closure pressure,” equaling the stress
tending to close the flaw. For a typical cement composition
prior to the breakdown, the stress in the cement sheath is
essentially hydrostatic and about equal to the reservoir
pressure of the formation. Therefore, for normally pressured
conditions, the flaw’s closure pressure is about the same as
the hydrostatic pressure of the completion fluid and the flaw
can begin to propagate as the breakdown begins.
2. The flaw initially extends in a radial geometry from the
perforation tunnel. Actually, extending annular flaws
originate from most of the perforations. The mechanics,
describing the flaw’s deformation, are relatively complex
during this early stage. The complexity results from the
multiple regions of localized pressure acting on the curved
surfaces of the casing and borehole.
3. After some period, the individual radial patterns
coalesce into one microannulus around the complete
circumference of the cement sheath. At this stage, the
annulus is analogous to a confined height PKN fracture (that
is, height equal circumference of wellbore) and can begin to
extend up and/or down along the wellbore until breakdown of
the formation by a hydraulic fracture.
For this latter stage, the mechanics governing the annular
width in the perforated section become relatively simple. The
simplicity comes from several sources. The expressions for
the change in radii of the casing and wellbore can be
determined from specialized cases for the elastic deformation
of a thick-wall cylinder. The multiple-connecting
perforations provide fluid with minimal pressure gradients in
the annulus. As a result, the pressures inside and outside the
casing become essentially equal, with no change of the
casing diameter, and the annular width depends only on the
change in radius for the borehole,
(A-1)
W =(1 + v)D(p~ - p,,)/2E
where:
w= microannulus width (in.)
v = Poisson’s ratio (dimensionless)
D= wellbore diameter (in.)
E= Young’s modulus (psi)
P. = microannulus pressure (psi)
P/) = far field reservoir pressure (psi)
As an example consider Eq. A-1 for a bottomhole pressure
8 L. A. Behnnann, K.G. Nolte SPE 39453

increase of 2000 psi over the hydrostatic pressure, a borehole Table B-2 Average Casing Hole Diameters
diameter of 7 in., and the rock modulus and Poisson’s ratio of
1+E6 psi and 0.2, respectively. For these conditions, the hole Phase Pair 2-1/2 BH 3-3/8 DP
radius and microannulus width increase by about 0.009 in. 00/1 80° 0.482 in. 0.33 in.
(or the thickness of four sheets of normal writing paper). The 60°/2400 0.537 in. 0.34 in.
hydraulic conductivity of such a microannulus is significant
when coupled with a large pressure differential (for example,
2000 psi) and a low-viscosity fluid: for example, less than 0.4
cp for completion brine at representative bottomhole 5. For both the 180-degree and 60-degree phased guns,
temperatures. use the average hole diameters for the 00/180° pairs. Because
The conductivity microannulus created during the the guns are not oriented, we don’t know if the PFP will be
breakdown pressurization provides the same pressure and closest to the 00/180° or 60°/2400 perforation pairs, thus a
fracture initiation environment as an openhole. For a vertical worst-case condition is used (smaller average holes). Use Eq.
well, it enhances the creation of a single fracture in the 1 to calculate the average flow rate per perforation: 0.70
preferred fracture plane. bbl/min for EH = 0.482 and 0.30 bbl/min for EH = 0.33. The
flow rates for the API holes are 1.17 and 0.46 bbl/min,
respectively, for EH = 0.61 and 0.40 in. Divide these flow
Appendix B rates into the total injection rate of 20 bbl/min to obtain the
Calculation of Minimum Shot Density for Fracture minimum number of effective holes: 29 for the 2-1/2 BH and
Stimulation. The following calculations illustrate the 67 for the 3-3/8 DP. To obtain the total number of holes
process and importance of calculating perforation friction multiply the effective holes by the phasing deficiency which
pressure drop and using the actual downhole perforation is 1 for 180-degree, 1.5 for 120-degree and 3 for 60-degree
casing hole diameters. phased guns and then divide by the 20 ft of perforated
1. Problem statement-Given the maximum injection rate interval to obtain the minimum required shot density. Table
and length of perforated interval, calculate the required shot B-3 summarizes these final numbers.
density for two gun systems for both 180-and 60-degree
phasings. Calculate the pressure drop if API entrance hole Table B-3 Minimum Gun Shot Density
(EH) data are used instead of downhole data.
2. Given-Maximum injection rate = 20 bbl/min., Gun/Phase SPF Actual Minimum SPF
perforated interval = 20 ft, gun one = 2-1/2 Big Hole with Using Pressure Using EH
API EH = 0.61 in:, gun two = 3-3/8 Deep Penetrator with API EH Drop Using from Table B-2,
API EH = 0.40 in., casing size = 5.5 in., 21 lb/ft, Q125, and API EH Delta P =25 psi
maximum 25-psi perforation friction pressure drop. 2-1/2 BH 0.86 Spf 70.5 psi 1.5 Spf
3. Obtain perforated casing hole diameters versus phase
angle from service company, as in Table B- 1.

Table B-1 Casing Hole Diameters

Phase EH (2-1/2 BH) I EH (3-3/8 DP)

API Data 0.61 in. 0.40 in.
0° 0.58 in. 0.38 in.
I 60° & 300° 0.58
0.49
in.
in.
0.37
0.30
in.
in.
9.36 in. 0.27 in. I 6. Check the required shot density and phasing with that
available. Most 2-1/2 and 3-3/8 guns are built with 6 spf at
60-degree phasing and can be downloaded to 2 spf at 180-
degrees and 3 spf at 120-degree. The IO spf 3-3/8 gun at 60-
4. Calculate average hole diameter for 180-and 60-degree degree phasing does not exist with the DP charge used in this
phasings using Eq. 3. Because the effective shots are always example; the maximum shot density is 6. This would result in
pairs of holes at 180-degree phasing, n = 2. For example, the a pressure drop of 70.8 psi. All other spf/phasings would be
average hole diameter for the 2-1/2 BH for the O-180-phase special orders, requiring lead time and advanced planning.
is:

<D> = ((0.58Z + 0.362)/2)0’5= 0.482.

Table B-2 gives the average hole diameters.

356
 ...

SPE 39453 Perforating Requirements for Fracture Stimulations 9

,, . .

I Dlsrup$ian 0$ 1’
I
‘“’----’’Sat 7

II Uncferbalance Test

Figure 3 Figure 4

Figures 3 and 4- Pictures of wellbores showing disruption of cementfsandface bond. Intact cement sections are shown in
gray. In Fig. 4 the fracture fluid that flowed around the wellbore annuius is red.

9-

8-

7-

6-

5- —
~ - 25 psi pressure drop
4-
- * = 50 psi pressure drop
3- ~ ’100 psi pressure drop
~200 psi pressure drop
2-

0 -r

o 0.2 0,4 0.6 0.8 1

Perforation Diameter, inch

Figure 5- Injection Rate \’ersus Perforation Diameter

357
 . . .. —-—-—. . —..-..

L. A. Behnnann, K.G. Nolte SPE 39453

<n
,“

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40
Penetrator
~2-1/2 Big Hole
0.30

I I I 3-318 Deep
0.20 I
Penetrator

0.10

I I I
0.00 I 1

0.5 1 1.5 2
0

Water Clearance, inch

Figure 6- Casing Hole Diameter Versus Water Clearance