p3d Model Description

COMPLETION/STIMULATION
Cracking Rock: Progress in Fracture Treatment Design
In the 1950s, hydraulic fracturing

was a hit-or-miss proposition.
Through the 60s and 70s, better
data quality and more sophisticated models of rock mechanics
improved control over the fracture
job. Today, with cost-effective,
high-power computing, two-dimensional (2D) models of fracture
propagation are giving way to a
three-dimensional (3D) approach.
Fracture treatment design has
never before been so powerful or
flexible a tool.
Barry Brady
Bobby Poe
Jack Elbel
Houston, Texas, USA
Mark Mack
Hugo Morales
Ken Nolte
Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
For their help with this article, thanks to Larry Behrmann,

Schlumberger Perforating Center, Rosharon, Texas, USA;
Simon Bittleston, Schlumberger Cambridge Research,
Cambridge, England; CJ de Pater, Delft Technical University, The Netherlands; Cor Kenter and Jacob Shlyapobersky Koninklijke/Shell Exploratie en Produktie Laboratorium, Rijswijk, The Netherlands; Paul Martins, BP
Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, USA; and George
K. Wong, Shell Bellaire Research, Houston, Texas, USA.
In this article, NODAL, DataFRAC and ZODIAC (Zoned
Dynamic Interpretation Analysis and Computation) are
marks of Schlumberger. VAX is a mark of Digital Equipment Corp. and Sun is a mark of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
The idea of hydraulically creating cracks in

a pay zone to enhance production was
developed in the 1920s by R.F. Farris of
Stanolind Oil and Gas Corp. He evolved the
concept following a study of pressures
encountered during squeezing of cement,
oil and water into formations. In 1947,
Stanolind (now Amoco Production Co.) per-
formed the first experimental hydraulic fracture in the Klepper #1 gas well in Grant
County, Kansas, USA. Deliverability of the
well did not improve appreciably, but the
technique showed promise, and the following year Stanolind presented a paper on the
Hydrafrac process.1 Halliburton Oil Well
Cementing Company obtained a license to
the process and, in 1949, performed the first
commercial fracturing treatments, raising
production of two wells outstandingly.2
Oilfield Review
The method took off. By 1955, treatments

reached 3000 wells per month, and by
1968, more than a half-million jobs had
been performed. Today, hydraulic fracturing
is used in 35 to 40% of wells, and in the
United States, where the procedure is most
widespread, it has increased oil reserves by
25 to 30%.3 Interest in hydraulic fracturing
shows no signs of abating.4 Application of
the technology is expanding from mainly
October 1992
1. Clark JB: A Hydraulic Process for Increasing the Productivity of Wells, Transactions of the AIME 186
(1949): 1-8.
2. Waters AB: History of Hydraulic Fracturing, presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Symposium,
Lubbock, Texas, USA, 1982.
3. Veatch RW Jr, Moschovidis ZA and Fast CR: An
Overview of Hydraulic Fracturing, in Gidley JL,
Holditch SA, Nierode DE and Veatch RW Jr (eds):
Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph
12. Richardson, Texas, USA: Society of Petroleum
Engineers (1989): 1-38.
4. Warpinski NR: Invited Paper: Rock Mechanics Issues

in Completion and Stimulation Operations, in Tillerson JR and Wawersik WR (eds): Proceedings of the
33rd US Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Santa Fe,
New Mexico, USA (June 3-5, 1992): 375-386.
4000
Fracture treatments/yr
3000
Remove
damage
Tight gas;
goal of 10
increase
North American
activity declines;
gas deregulation
Moderate/high
perm; goal
of 2
increase
2000
Middle East
imports to
North America
1000
Improved
materials,
understanding
OPEC supply restrictions
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
nChanging motivation for hydraulic fracturing. The three parts of the graph with positive slope indicate three motivations: initially, to remove damage, then to improve tenfold the productivity of tight gas sands, and today, to double productivity of mediumto high-permeability formations.
low-permeability reservoirs to medium-to
high-permeability settings (above ).
Hydraulic fracturing is the pumping of fluids at rates and pressures sufficient to break
the rock, ideally forming a fracture with two
wings of equal length on both sides of the
borehole. If pumping were stopped after the
fracture was created, the fluids would gradually leak off into the formation. Pressure
inside the fracture would fall and the fracture would close, generating no additional
conductivity. To preserve a fracture once it
has been opened, either acid is used to etch
the faces of the fracture and prevent them

from fitting closely together, or the fracture
is packed with proppant (usually sand) to
hold it open. This article concentrates on
the latter technique.
Today, a typical fracturing treatment uses
thickened fluids pumped in stages. The first
stage is a pad of water, a polymer and
additives. Then comes the slurry, which is
pad plus proppantgenerally sandin suspension. Different concentrations of proppant and volumes of slurry are pumped as
the job progresses (below ).
Pressure exerted by the pad initiates and

propagates the fracture. The slurry helps
extend the fracture and transports proppant.
The fracture gradually fills until the proppant packs into the fracture tip (next page ).
At this point, the fracture treatment is finished and pumping stops. As pressure
within the fracture declines, the fracture
closes on the proppant pack, ensuring that it
remains in place, providing a conduit for
hydrocarbons. Productivity would be inhibited by viscous fluid in the pad and slurry
that remains in the formation. However,
when the fluids high viscosity is no longer
needed, the high temperature of the formation or special oxidizers cause the fluid
break to a lower viscosity, allowing it to
be produced back.5
Hydraulic fracturing lies at the interface of
fluid mechanics and rock mechanics. In the
45 years since the first fracture job, fluid science has advanced significantly. Treatment
fluids have been diversified to handle many
temperature, chemical and permeability
conditions (see Rewriting the Rules for
High-Permeability Stimulation, page 18).
Additives control a range of fluid properties,
such as viscosity, pH, stability and loss of
fluid to the formation, called leakoff.6 Many
proppants have been developed, from the
standard silica sand to high-strength proppants, like sintered bauxite and zirconium
oxide particles, used where fracture closure
stress would crush sand.
Job Description Information

Stage
Name
Pump
Rate
Fluid
Name
bbl/min.
Proppant
Concentration
gal
lbm/gal
Proppant Type
+ Mesh
Estimated Surface
Pressure
psi
Pad
35
YF140
5000
INTERPROP + 20/40
5630
Slurry
35
YF140
9000
INTERPROP + 20/40
4610
Slurry
35
YF140
14,000
INTERPROP + 20/40
3760
Slurry
35
YF140
23,000
INTERPROP + 20/40
3080
Slurry
35
YF140
15,000
INTERPROP + 20/40
2460
Slurry
35
YF140
13,200
6170
nA typical pumping schedule for a

hydrofrac in a gas well in east Oklahoma, USA. Each unit of fluid that
represents a change in proppant
concentration or flow rate or both is
called a stage; a specific sequence
of stages is called a pumping
schedule. This is a pumping schedule to produce a 909-foot [277-m]
fracture. The pad fractures the rock
and helps transport the proppant,
which holds the fracture open after
pressure is released. A major component of fracture design is establishing the volume and chemistry of
pad and slurry. Generally, the pad
6
Stage Fluid
Volume
is the largest stage, accounting for

30 to 50% of fluid, and, rarely, up to
70%. Ideally, to optimize the
propped fracture length, the pad is
completely leaked off at the
moment the fracture reaches its
intended length. If the pad leaks off
too soon, the fracture will be too
short; if too late, the fracture is not
effectively propped. In this well, five
slurry stages with different proppant
concentrations and volumes are
used, but as many as 17 or 20 slurry
stages may be used in large frac
jobs. The later slurry stages have
higher proppant concentrations
than earlier stages because the
slurry fluid leaks off as it travels
along the fracture. Therefore, a
slurry concentration that starts at the

wellbore as 2 lb of proppant per gallon of fluid [240 kg/m3], may end up
as 8 lbm/gal [960 kg/m3] at the end
of pumping, and 44 lbm/gal [5270
kg/m3] when the fracture closes. In
this job, one proppant size is used
(20/40 refers to a standard sieve
mesh size that permits passage of a
particle with an average diameter of
0.63 mm [0.025 in.] ). A larger proppant is sometimes used near the wellbore to minimize turbulent flow,
which would decrease hydrocarbon
flow rate.
Oilfield Review
October 1992
25% slurry volume pumped
Height, m
30
15
Height, m
30
15

30
Height, m
15
0
0
50
100
Distance, m
Proppant concentration, vol %
Until recently, advances in rock mechanics lagged somewhat behind those in fluid
technology. In the 1950s, there was no need
for a rigorous theory of fracture propagation,
the backbone of fracture treatment design.
Low-volume, low-rate and low proppant
concentration fracture stimulation succeeded without careful design. But as treatments grew in size and complexity, operators needed more control. Today more than
ever, the expense of hydraulic fracturing
requires that the operator knows how the
formation will respond to treatment, and
whether the treatment designthe selection
of pump rates, fluid properties, pumping
schedule and fracture propagation model
will create the intended fracture (see To
Frac or Not to Frac? next page ).
Pivotal to designing the treatmentand to
deciding whether to do one at allis costbenefit analysis, relating cost of the fracture
job to increased well productivity. The more
fracture length for a given fracture conductivity, the more productivity, but also the
more costly the fracture job. This analysis,
called net present value, is done with simulators that find the optimum fracture length
and conductivity for a given payback schedule. Too short a fracture, or too low a conductivity, and the increase in well productivity wont cover the cost of the fracture
treatment; too long, and the extra fracture
length will add significantly to cost but negligibly to production. Some simulators
model fracturing economics in longer terms;
they tell, for example, for a well with a
given deliverability, amortized at a certain
rate, how much should be spent on
hydraulic fracturing given a future oil price.
In the past few years, improvements in
fracture design have come from developments in several areas:
Fracture geometry modeling. Mathematical models today can better predict how
in-situ rock responds to fracturing.
Relationship of perforation design and
fracture initiation (see The Shape of Perforation Strategy, page 54 ). Careful
design of perforations can minimize pressure drop at the borehole.
Fracture treatment evaluation. Mathematical advances have also made evaluation
tools more powerful. There is a growing
practice of testing the validity of the fracture geometry model against postfracture
well test data, then refining the model.
This back analysis permits prediction of
fracture parameters, particularly fracture
length and conductivity, to be compared
with independent field measurements.
0
5
10
15
20
Initial
fracture
geometry
at wellbore
25
30
35
65
5. Gulbis J, Hawkins G, King M, Pulsinelli R, Brown E

and Elphick J: Taking the Brakes off Proppant-Pack
Conductivity, Oilfield Review 3, no. 1 (January
1991): 18-26.
6. Overviews of fracturing fluids:
Constien VG: Fracturing Fluid and Proppant Characterization, in Economides MJ and Nolte KG (eds):
Reservoir Stimulation, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall (1989): 5-15-23.
Ely JW: Fracturing Fluids and Additives, in Gidley
JL, Holditch SA, Nierode DE and Veatch RW Jr (eds):
Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph
12. Richardson, Texas, USA: Society of Petroleum
Engineers (1989): 130-146.
nAn investigational proppant transport

model, showing variation of proppant
concentration at three times during fracturing. This simulation, by Simon Bittleston at Schlumberger Cambridge
Research in England, predicts the final
distribution of proppant, used for quantifying fracture conductivity. Yellow is no
proppant, green to dark blue is low to
high proppant concentrations, respectively, and red is packed proppant. Slurry
is denser than pad so it tends to slump,
called gravity current. After 50% of the
slurry volume is pumped, a shower of settling proppant appears as a light blue fog
near the tip of the propagating slurry.
Falling proppant results in a packed bed
(red) along the bottom of the fracture. This
packed bed restricts downward growth of
the fracture. As a result of this proppant
distribution modeling, the pumping
schedule can be modified to optimize
fracture design. Although still a research
tool, it may later be integrated into fracture design programs.
7
To Frac or Not to Frac?
Fracture Geometry Modeling
Determine if the well is providing the maximum benefit, indicated

by return on investment and net present value.
Evaluate permeability and skin (near well damage) from well test.
Determine benefit using NODAL

analysis for various
combinations of:
Recompletions (tubing size,
perforations, surface
equipment, artificial lift)
and
Matrix treatments
(different materials and sizes)
or
Fracture treatments
(different material and sizes).
Maximum benefit achieved for

recompletions only?
Yes
Perform recompletion.
No
Perform matrix
treatment
(see Trends in Matrix
Acidizing, page 24).
Yes
Maximum benefit achieved after

matrix treatment only?
No
Is maximum benefit achieved after
matrix treatment with recompletion?
Yes
No
Perform fracture
treatment.
Yes
Is maximum benefit achieved
after fracturing only?
No
Is maximum benefit achieved after
fracturing with recompletion?
Yes
No
Fracturing not needed.
7. Hubbert MK and Willis DG: Mechanics of Hydraulic

Fracturing, Transactions of the AIME 210 (1957):
153-166.
8. Barree RD: A New Look at Fracture Tip Screenout
Behavior, paper SPE 18955, presented at the SPE
Joint Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, March 6-8, 1989; Journal of Petroleum
Technology 43 (February 1991): 138-143.
Clifton RJ and Abou-Sayed AS: A Variational
Approach to the Prediction of the Three-Dimensional
Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures, paper SPE/DOE
9879, presented at the SPE/DOE Low-Permeability
Gas Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA,
May 27-29, 1981.
Clifton RJ: Three-Dimensional Fracture-Propagation

Models, in Gidley JL, Holditch SA, Nierode DE and
Veatch RW Jr (eds): Recent Advances in Hydraulic
Fracturing, Monograph 12. Richardson, Texas, USA:
Society of Petroleum Engineers (1989): 95-108.
Hongren G and Leung KH: Three-Dimensional
Numerical Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Closure
with Application to Minifrac Analysis, paper SPE
20657, presented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
USA, September 23-26, 1990.
9. The PKN model is from the work of Perkins and Kern,
revised by Nordgren to account for flow rate gradients
in the fracture.
Nordgren RP: Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic
Fracture, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 12
(August 1972): 306-314; Transactions of the AIME 253.
Perkins TK and Kern LR: Widths of Hydraulic Fractures, Journal of Petroleum Technology 13 (September 1961): 937-949; Transactions of the AIME 222.
The need to understand hydraulic fracturing

stimulated advances in basic rock mechanics. A key finding was of Hubbert and
Willis, in 1957, showing that fractures in the
earth are usually vertical, not horizontal.7
They reasoned that because a fracture is a
plane of parting in rock, the rock will open
in the direction of least resistance. At the
depth of most pay zones, overburden exerts
the greatest stress, so the direction of least
stress is therefore horizontal (next page,
top). Fractures open perpendicular to this
direction and are therefore vertical. In shallow wells, or where thrusting is active, horizontal stress may exceed vertical stress and
horizontal fractures may form.
By the 1960s, fractures created below
1000 or 2000 ft [300 to 600 m] were
accepted as vertical. Operators then posed
some difficult questions: How high does the
fracture grow? How can we prevent it from
extending into the gas or water zone? How
does fracture height relate to fracture width
and length? And how do we optimize fracture dimensions?
A major task of rock mechanics became
the prediction of fracture height, length and
width for a given injection rate, duration of
injection and fluid leakoff. Needed for this
prediction is a model of how a fracture
propagates in rock.
Today, a number of models occupy a continuum from 2D to pseudo-three-dimensional (P3D) and fully 3D. The basic difference between 2D and P3D/3D models is
that in 2D models, fracture height is fixed or
set equal to length (that is, a semicircular
shape), whereas in P3D and 3D models,
fracture height, length and width can all
vary somewhat independently. Two-dimensional models have been around for about
30 years; three-dimensional for about ten
years. Increased computing power has
recently made pseudo-3D models practical
for routine design. Fully 3D models have
10. Khristianovic SA and Zheltov YP: Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous Liquid,
Proceedings, Fourth World Petroleum Congress,
Rome, Italy, section 2 (1955): 579-586.
Geertsma J and de Klerk FA: Rapid Method of Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulically Induced
Fractures, Journal of Petroleum Technology 19
(December 1969): 1571-1581; Transactions of the
AIME 246.
11. Ahmed U: Fracture-Height Predictions and PostTreatment Measurements, in Economides MJ and
Nolte KG (eds): Reservoir Stimulation, 2nd ed.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall
(1989): 10-110-13.
12. Van Eekelen HAM: Hydraulic Fracture Geometry:
Fracture Containment in Layered Formations, paper
SPE 9261, presented at the 55th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA,
September 21-24, 1980.
Oilfield Review
limited use because of lengthy computation

time, but they are the way of the future.
State-of-the-art fully 3D models simulate
nonplanar fractures, but most commercial
versions are planar.8
Most 2D models are based on three common models: the Perkins-Kern-Nordgren9
(PKN) model, the Khristianovic-Geertsma-de
Klerk10 (KGD) model and the radial model
(below). The PKN and KGD models assume
fracture height is constant along the length
of the fracture; height is usually picked by
lithologic boundaries. Fracture length and
width are then calculated from height
(which may be estimated using acoustic log
data combined with modeling of fracture
mechanics and elastic properties11 ), Youngs
modulus, fluid viscosity, injection rate and
time and leakoff. In the radial model, fracture length and height are equal and are
jointly allowed to vary. Width is also
allowed to vary.
The 3D approach is more realistic
because fracture height is not determined by
lithology but by vertical variation in the
magnitude of least principal stresses, which
often but not always follow lithologic units.
(The greater the vertical contrast in least
principal stresses, the better fracture height
is contained.12 )
Vertical
stress
Sv
St
Max
horiz.
stress
Min.
horiz.
stress
Sr
nStresses in the earth act in three principal directions, one vertical, and two horizontal, a maximum and a minimum. At
the borehole wall, these are vertical, S v ,
radial, S r , and tangential, S t . Vertical
stress induced by overburden usually
exceeds the two horizontal components.
This means a fracture will have the least
resistance to opening along a plane normal to the smallest principal stress.
Because this stress is horizontal, the fracture will orient vertically. In areas of
active thrusting, and in some shallow
wells, a horizontal stress may exceed
overburden and the fracture will form
horizontally. Regional tectonic forces
determine the azimuthal orientation of the
least principal stresses and thus of the
fracture wings.
The emergence of 3D models has not

eclipsed 2D models. Two-dimensional models work where:
The fracture grows in a formation of homogeneous stress and mechanical properties
so that fracture height is small compared
to formation layer thickness. The radial
model is appropriate in this setting.
Stress contrasts are high between the pay
layer and neighboring formations and
these contrasts follow lithologic boundaries. The PKN or KGD models, which
assume constant height, are appropriate in
this setting.
When these conditions are absent, use of
2D models requires estimation of fracture
height based on the users experience and
knowledge. The consequences of underestimating fracture height, for example, range
from disastrous to troublesome but manageable. The fracture may extend into a gas or
water leg, which can ruin a well. Underpredicting fracture height overpredicts fracture
length because, for a given pump rate,
unanticipated doubling of fracture height
decreases length by about 50%, depending
on leakoff. If the fracture is shorter than predicted, it may not be as productive as forecast. The pump schedule may be inappropriate, further cutting fracture conductivity.
2D Fracture Models
Pressure required
to extend fracture
PKN
Elliptical cross section

Width height
Width < KGD;
length > KGD
More appropriate when
fracture length > height
nThe family of
basic 2D fracture
modelsPKN,
GDK and radial.
Time
Fracture
height fixed
Pressure required
to extend fracture
KGD
Rectangular cross section

Width length
More appropriate when
fracture length < height
Time
Radial
Appropriate when fracture

length = height
Pressure required
to extend fracture
Fracture
height not
fixed
Time
October 1992
P3D Fracture
For example, proppant concentrations may

be excessive, causing proppant to plug the
fracture before flowing its full length, and
leaving some fracture length unpropped.13
The evolutionary step after 2D modeling
is P3D modeling.14 When conditions are
ideal for a 2D modelhigh, known stress
contraststhe P3D model height prediction
may be more accurate than the estimated
height of the 2D model (below ). The advantage of the P3D approach is that it does not
require estimating fracture height, but it
2D versus P3D/3D Fracture Models

for Different Bed Boundary Stress Contrasts
High contrast
Low contrast
High contrast
Low contrast
does require input of the magnitude of minimum horizontal stress in the zone to be
fractured and in the zones immediately
above and below. (It calculates height using
this stress and the fluid pressure within the
fracture.) The stress values may be estimated
from a mechanical properties log, an indirect measurement.
On a small scale, the best direct stress
measurement is from several microfracs,15
in which small fractures are created at several wellbore locations (below ). Fracturing
fluid is usually water without proppant. On
the reservoir scale, determination of stress
and fluid loss is accomplished by a calibration treatment, in which a fracture is created
without proppant that is up to one-third the
length of the planned fracture. The engineer
analyzes the curve of pressure decline versus time after the rock has been fractured
(next page, top). Finding the fracture closure
2D
4200
P3D
/3D
High contrast
Low contrast
High contrast
Low contrast
Well depth, ft
4600
Log
derived
Microfrac test
5000
5400
5800
nA P3D fracture propagating from the borehole (top) and comparison of 2D, P3D/fully
3D models for high and low contrast in minimum horizontal stress between beds. A low
stress contrast is on the order of a 100 psi [690 kilopascals (kPa)]; a high stress contrast
is greater than 1000 psi [6895 kPa]. Here, if one assumes that fracture height of the 2D
model is selected based on lithology, not on stress contrast, then the 2D fracture model
stays within the beds. In the low-contrast case, the 2D model will probably overestimate fracture length and underestimate height, compared to the P3D/fully 3D models.
In the low-contrast case, there would be a slight length and height difference between
the P3D and fully 3D models. In the high-contrast case, the P3D and fully 3D models
would predict about the same geometry.
13. Nierode DE: Fracture Treatment Design, in Gidley
JL, Holditch SA, Nierode DE and Veatch RW Jr (eds):
Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph 12. Richardson, Texas, USA: Society of
Petroleum Engineers (1989): 223-244.
14. Ben-Naceur K: Modeling of Hydraulic Fractures,
in Economides MJ and Nolte KG (eds): Reservoir
Stimulation, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
USA: Prentice Hall (1989): 3-13-31.
10
15. Daneshy AA, Slusher GL, Chisholm PT and Magee

DA: In-Situ Stress Measurements During Drilling,
Journal of Petroleum Engineering 38 (August 1986):
891-898.
Sarda JP, Detienne JL and Lassus-Dessus J, Recommendations for Microfracturing Implementations
and the Interpretation of Micro- and Pre-Fracturing, Revue de lInstitut Franais du Ptrole 47, no.
2 (March-April 1992): 179-204.
16. Nolte KG: Fracture Pressure Analysis: Deviations
from Ideal Assumptions, paper SPE 20704, presented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
2200
2600
3000
3400
Minimum horizontal stress, psi
nStress profile measured by

microfrac and derived from wireline log data. Most correlations
between log-derived and measured stresses are linear and
show more deviation than this
example.
17. Martins JP, Bartel PA, Kelly RT, Ibe OE and Collins PJ:
Small Highly Conductive Hydraulic Fractures Near
Reservoir Fluid Contacts: Application to Prudhoe
Bay, paper SPE 24856, presented at the 67th SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington DC, USA, October 4-7, 1992.
Oilfield Review
October 1992
Bottomhole pressure, psi
9000
nEffect of closure
stress on a pressure/time curve. In
this idealized
example, interpretation of the slope
to find horizontal
stress is straightforward. Changes in
curve slope are not
always so clear.
Pressure decline
Fracture
treatment
Fracture
closing
8000
Fracture closes
on proppant
7000
6000
Reservoir
pressure
Closure pressure =
minimum horizontal rock stress
5000
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
56
58
Time, hr
Pressure required to extend fracture, psi
pressure, which equals the minimum horizontal stress, requires interpretation of the
slopes, which is open to ambiguity.16 The
drawback of the microfrac method is its
high cost and insensitivity to stress variation
from well to well and across a field. The
leakoff estimation is also complicated when
fractures grow into impermeable layers,
where leakoff will not be proportional to
fracture area.
P3D models assume a simplified representation of fluid flow in the fracture. This
assumption is made mainly to shorten computation time, but it may result in inaccurate
estimation of fracture height. This is because
pressure distribution in the fracture, which
controls growth of fracture height, is generated by the fluid flow.
Although this problem seems simple
enough to solve, it requires the leap to fully
3D modeling of fracture geometry. Fully 3D
simulators are difficult to usethey require
accurate stress contrast dataand so are not
widely employed, but the theory permits the
closest approximation of what fractures
really do. The two main differences
between fully 3D and P3D are in how they
handle fluid flow and pressure calculation
along the fracture. Fully 3D geometry models use a fully 2D model of fluid flow,
whereas P3D models approximate the 2D
fluid flow. In a fully 3D geometry model,
pressure everywhere is used to calculate
fracture width at any point. Width is generally calculated using the pressure integral
along the total fracture length and height. In
the P3D model, the pressure-width relation
is simplified to improve efficiency, usually
by considering only particular shapes, such
as ellipses, or by neglecting variation of
pressure along the fracture length.
At BP, fully 3D models are not used routinely because of lack of appropriate input
nPressure versus
time for lateral
coupling compared with traditional fracture
models.
300
250
Lateral
coupling
200
PKN
150
KGD
100
50
0
20
40
60
80
Time, min
data. They are used to understand fracture

propagation in a particular field.17 Where
fracture containment is poor, 3D models
have been used to assist microfrac interpretations and to generate simple models for
routine fracture design. These simple models are refined by posttreatment evaluation.
The pressure integral advantage of the
fully 3D model has been introduced to PKN
and P3D models using a method called lateral coupling. This is a way to introduce 3D
elasticity to models that dont include it.
Mathematically, lateral coupling puts back a
gross approximation of the pressure integral
along the fracture length. This poor-mans
integral couples pressures at points along
the fracture, instead of considering them in
isolation. Compared with conventional PKN
and P3D modeling, it doubles or triples

computation time, but improves estimation
of fracture height and fracture pressure during treatment (above ).
A third evolutionary stage, multilayer fracture (MLF) modeling, takes one step back in
order to take two steps forward. The MLF
simulator is a revision of PKN modeling that
permits describing the geometry of more
than one fracture forming in more than one
layer and then planning the appropriate
11
pumping schedule.18 (below ). Multilayer

modeling was needed as more reservoirs
were exploited in which conventional modeling has limitations. This is often the case
when stress barriers prevent the coalescing
of fractures in multiple zones or where layers of varying thicknesses and stress magnitudes are to be fractured.
The MLF approach indicates whether a
single treatment or separate treatments are
needed to achieve optimum geometry of
fractures in multiple zones. If separate treatments are needed for the desired penetration in each layer, the MLF simulator may
be used to determine how many are
required. It can also help in planning limited entry perforatingvarying the number
of perforations in each layer, depending on
layer thickness and stress state, to achieve
the desired fracture geometry. (Fewer perforations in the layer taking the most fluid
restricts flow and diverts it into other layers.)
Inputs to the MLF model are the same as
for P3D: stress profile, Youngs Modulus and
leakoff for each formation. The model differs from existing descriptions of multilayer
fracturing in that it quantifies transient fluid
partitioning during pumping as a function of
fracturing fluid and formation properties.
Existing models calculate partitioning only
Gamma
ray
at a single time or for a limited number of

formation characteristics.19
The MLF model also allows the prediction
of crossflow between fractures after pumping stops and before all the fractures close.
Matching the predicted and measured crossflow permits a more accurate prediction of
the parameters that determine fluid volume
that enters each zone, and the resulting fracture length and height.
With the arrival of the MLF model, the
engineer can choose from five general types
of fracture propagation models. Selection of
the right model is critical. Even slight differences between modeled and actual fracture
dimensions can translate to dramatic differences in required proppant concentration
and weight, and pad volume (next page ).
Usually, PKN, KGD and radial models are
chosen with a chain of empirical deductions. The engineer estimates the shape of
the induced fractureif length exceeds
height, its PKN; if length is less than height,
its KGD. This value is based the sand thickness to be fractured, proximity to gas, water
or other fractures and estimation of the
stress contrast between the reservoir section
and abutting formations, usually shales. The
stress contrast estimate is often valid when
the well has clean sands and clean shales.
The Perf and the Frac: Whats the Link?
Field wisdom holds that the ideal perforation lies in the plane normal to the minimum far-field stress direction. This perforation links most directly with the induced
fracture, minimizing pressure drop near the
borehole. Other perforations probably connect with the fracture indirectly, if at all. But
because fracture azimuth is generally not
known and because alignable perforating
guns are not readily available, conventional
guns shooting at closely spaced angles
around 360 are generally used. These are
called phased guns. The closer the angle
(phasing) between perforations, the better
chance of having more perforations in or
near the ideal plane. Not until recently,
however, were large-scale experiments performed to evaluate the relationship between
perforations and hydraulic fractures.
Behrmann and Elbel of Schlumberger and
Dowell Schlumberger, respectively, used
full-scale perforators on steel casing
cemented into sandstone blocks placed in a
2D
P3D
MLF
Perfs
Perfs
Layered beds
The estimate becomes tenuous in silty shale,

which may have the same stress magnitude
as sand but may poorly contain fracture
height. Again, the best measurement of
stress is obtained from a microfrac.
Shale
Sand
nComparison of 2D, P3D and multilayer fracture (MLF) models in a multilayer setting. In the 2D model, fracture
height is selected to be limited by the top of the upper sand and bottom of the lower sand. The fracture is considered to grow simultaneously from both sands and to be of uniform length. Youngs Modulus is averaged for the
two sands and the shale between them. In the P3D model, the fracture grows from one sand to the other, but not
simultaneously as in the 2D model. In both the 2D and P3D models, fracture lengths are equal for both the thick
and thin sands. In the MLF model, which uses a modified PKN model, fracture lengths and heights are unequal.
Length depends on fracture height, stress magnitude and Youngs Modulus. As with other 2D models, height is
selected for each layer, here by lithologic boundaries. The next generation MLF model will adapt P3D modeling.
12
Oilfield Review
2000
0.75
KGD
0.50
PKN
0.25
Fracture penetration, ft
Treatment cost, $ 106
1.0
PKN
1500
KGD
1000
500
0
750
1500
2250
3000
2.5
2.0
KGD
1.5
1.0
PKN
0.5
0
0
750
1500
80,000
160,000
240,000
Fluid volume, gal
2250
3000
Fracture conductivity, md-ft
Proppant weight, lb 106
Fracture half-length, ft
2900
KGD
2400
1900
1400
PKN
900
400
0
750
1500
2250
3000
Comparison of Fracture-Design Calculations for Different Fracturing Models

KGD
Pad volume, bbl
Proppant-laden fluid volume, bbl
Average sand concentration, lbm/gal
Perkins-Kern
Nordgren
750
1,350
1,650
1,250
650
350
2.5
3.5
157,500
68,350
51,000
Viscosity after pad, cp
36
36
36
Created fracture length, ft
698
804
845
Total amount of sand, lbm
Effective fracture length, ft
486
240
185
Created fracture width, in.
0.22
0.17
0.16
Effective fracture width, in.
0.20
0.16
0.16
Effective fracture height, ft
98
94
85
Average fracture conductivity, darcy-ft
7.1
6.5
6.5
Adapted from Veatch RW Jr, et al, reference 3.
nComparison of fracture properties for PKN and KGD fractures (top four graphs) and for
three fracture models (bottom).
triaxial stress cell. 20 They made several

observations about the relationship between
perforation orientation and stress direction.
They found that fractures initiate from the
wellbore wall in the optimum hydraulic
fracture direction, from perforations nearest
this direction, or both. Fractures tend not to
form at other perforations.
The best perforation-to-fracture communication is achieved when perforations are
within 10 of the far-field minimum horizontal stress. This means that perforations
not optimally oriented may result in a large
pressure drop, or proppant bridging, when
October 1992
pad and slurry flow around the annulus to

the fracture. As expected, the maximum
number of perforations in communication
with the fracture is achieved with a perforating gun having the smallest possible angle
between shots.
Another finding of Berhmann and Elbel
concerns pump rate and viscosity of the
prepad, a low-viscosity fluid sometimes
pumped ahead of the pad. It has been long
recognized that a prepad can increase pore
pressure, and thereby decrease fracture initiation pressure. The lower the initiation pressure, the lower the pressure required.
Behrmann and Elbel, after cutting apart the
sandstone blocks, found that slow pumping

of low-viscosity prepad has another effect: it
maximizes the number of fractures initiated
at perforations suboptimally aligned. More
work is needed to determine whether
increasing suboptimally aligned fractures
reduces pressure drop at the well, which
would improve deliverability.
Pearson and colleagues at ARCO Alaska
Inc. aligned perforations normal to the minimum far-field stress in deviated wells. They
used perforating guns with a downhole orientation motor in conjunction with realtime navigation tools. This enabled placement of larger, more productive fractures.21
Pearson and colleagues suspect that posttreatment skin damage may be associated
with pressure drops from poor communication between the main fracture and fractures from perforations that are not aligned
normal to the minimum far-field stress.
Analysis of the ARCO results by CJ de Pater
and colleagues at Delft Technical University in The Netherlands suggests that Pearsons results may be inconclusive.22 Pearson and colleagues changed a number of
parameters (such as multiple zone to single
zone perforation and gun size) that may
have equally explained their ability to place
larger treatments.
18. Elbel JL, Piggott AR and Mack MG: Numerical
Modeling of Multilayer Fracture Treatments, paper
SPE 23982, presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil
and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas,
USA, March 18-20, 1992; Journal of Petroleum
Technology 43 (May 1991): 608-615.
19. Ahmed U, Newberry BM and Cannon DE: Hydraulic
Fracture Treatment Design of Wells with Multiple
Zones, paper SPE/DOE 13857, presented at the
SPE/DOE 1985 Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA, May 19-22, 1985.
Ben-Naceur K and Roegiers J-C: Design of Fracturing Treatments in Multilayered Formations, SPE
Production Engineering 5 (February 1990): 21-26.
20. Berhmann LA and Elbel JL: Effect of Perforations on
Fracture Initiation, paper SPE 20661, presented at
the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 23-26, 1990.
21. Pearson CM, Bond AJ, Eck ME and Schmidt JH:
Results of Stress-Oriented and Aligned Perforating
in Fracturing Deviated Wells, paper SPE 22836,
presented at the 66th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 69, 1991.
For details of the aligned and oriented perforating
technique:
Yew CH, Schmidt JH and Yi L: On Fracture Design
of Deviated Wells, paper SPE 19722, presented at
the 64th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, October 8-11, 1989.
22. de Pater CJ, personal communication, 1992.
13
Today, the center of controversy in fracturing is a fundamental concept called fracture

toughness, a measure of energy dissipated
by fracture growth. Established thinking
holds that fracture toughness is a material
property that is independent of fracture size.
The focus is on energy dissipated at the fracture tip, considered to be a very small zone.
Another school of thought, led by investigators at Shell, mainly Jacob Shlyapobersky,

maintains that fracture toughness is not a
material property, and that it increases with
fracture size.26 This point of view holds that
fracture toughness is the release of energy
not at the fracture tip but within a large
zone of irreversible deformation around the
fracture tip. The volume of this zone is
thought to increase with fracture size.
These two views lead to different explanations for the creation of fracture width,
which is directly related to net pressure
(fracture propagation pressure minus closure
pressure). The size-dependent school says
fracture width is larger and only weakly
affected by fracture fluid viscositythat is,
that net pressure is not sensitive to viscosity.
This is because net pressure, in order to
overcome the large, size-dependent toughness, creates a fracture width large enough
to make viscous flow effects negligible.
According to established thinking, because
toughness is not size-dependent and has a
conventional magnitude, pressure gradients
from viscous flow dominate the toughness
effect and fracturing, and create smaller
fractures than those modeled by the sizedependent toughness school.
The two schools, therefore, have different
calculations of fracture length and required
pad volume. The size-dependent school
maintains that the established view will
underestimate width and therefore overestimate fracture length for a given fracture volume. This is because net pressure, according to the established view, is determined
mainly by viscosity and not, as the size
school holds, by viscosity and increasing
fracture toughness. The established view
maintains that apparent error in estimation
of fracture length and width does not result
from size-dependent toughness but from use
of an inappropriate fracture geometry or
reservoir model.27
Another area of investigation concerns the
assumption that rock behaves as a purely
26. Shlyapobersky J, Walhaug WW, Sheffield RE and

Huckabee PT: Field Determination of Fracturing
Parameters for Overpressure Calibrated Design of
Hydraulic Fracturing, paper SPE 18195, presented
at the 63rd SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, October 2-5, 1988.
Shlyapobersky J, Wong GK and Walhaung WW:
Overpressure Calibrated Design of Hydraulic Fracturing, paper SPE 18194, presented at the 63rd SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, October 2-5, 1988.
Lewis PE: Analysis of Treatment Data Yields CostEffective Fracturing, The American Oil and Gas
Reporter 35, no. 1 (January 1992): 32-34, 36-38.
Shlyapobersky J: Energy Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing, Proceedings of the 26th US Symposium on
Rock Mechanics, Rapid City, South Dakota, USA
(June 26-28, 1985): 539-546.
Shlyapobersky J and Chudnovsky A: Fracture

Mechanics in Hydraulic Fracturing, in Tillerson JR
and Wawersik WR (eds): Proceedings of the 33rd
US Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Santa Fe, New
Mexico, USA (June 3-5, 1992): 827-836.
27. Elbel J and Ayoub J: Evaluation of Apparent Fracture
Lengths Indicated From Transient Tests, paper
CIM/AOSTRA 91-44, presented at the CIM/AOSTRA
Technical Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada, April
21-24, 1991; Canadian Journal of Petroleum Technology (in press).
Nolte KG and Economides MJ: Fracture Length
Determination and Implications for Treatment
Design, paper SPE 18979, presented at the SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoir Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
USA, March 6-8, 1989; Journal of Petroleum Engineering 43 (September 1991): 1147-1155.
Enhanced Fracture Treatment

Evaluation
Fracture design may be fine-tuned by careful postjob evaluation. This tells whether the
job went as planned, and tests the validity
of the plan and the variables on which it
was based (see Design of an Ideal Fracture
Treatment, next page). Postfracture evaluation requires a drawdown and buildup test,
which indicates fracture skin and whether
the actual fracture length and conductivity
match those planned. This testing is not a
common procedure because operators are
usually hesitant to stop production for the
10 to 14 days required for the buildup. But
in some fields, the practice is becoming
more common in a few, select wells. For
example, in BPs Ravenspurn South field in
the UK sector of the North Sea, an extensive
program of data collection and analysis was
performed on the first six development
wells. This included extensive pre-and postfrac well testing, logging and recording of
bottomhole pressures during job execution.
The program helped optimization of job
design for the remainder of the field, leading
to significant reduction in the number of
wells required.23
A typical problem is that posttreatment
transient pressure analysis shows the fracture is shorter than indicated by the volume
and leakoff of pumped fluid. There could be
several reasons for the disparity. A common
reason, however, is that most postfracture
evaluation models assume ideal reservoir
conditionshomogeneous and isotropic
formations, uniform fracture width and conductivity and absence of skin damage.24
To get away from assuming ideal reservoir
conditions, Schlumberger has made several
improvements to the ZODIAC Zoned
Dynamic Interpretation, Analysis and Computation program. This program improves
evaluation by accounting for variation in
fracture conductivity and width along the
fracture length, for reservoir permeability
anisotropy and for fracture face skin dam23. Martins JP, Leung KH, Jackson MR, Stewart DR and
Carr AH: Tip Screen Out Fracturing Applied to the
Ravenspurn South Gas Field Development, paper
SPE 19766, presented at the 64th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, October 8-11, 1989.
24. Walsh DM and Leung KH: Post Fracturing Gas Well
Test Analysis Using Buildup Type Curves paper SPE
19253, Offshore Europe 1989, Aberdeen, Scotland,
25. Poe BD, Shah PC and Elbel JC: Pressure Transient
Behavior of a Finite Conductivity Fractured Well
With Spatially Varying Fracture Properties, paper
SPE 24707, presented at the 67th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington DC,
USA, October 4-7, 1992.
14
Conventional
postfracture well test
ZODIAC / P3D
nPostfracture interpretation of fracture

geometry by conventional pressure transient analysis and with the ZODIAC program. The main difference is that conventional analysis does not account for
spatial variation in fracture conductivity
and width, assumes fracture height
equals bed thickness, and ignores fracture face skin damage. The blue area is
ignored in the conventional analysis.
age.25 It also does not link fracture height
with bed thickness (above ), but uses a P3D
approach to permit variation in propped
fracture height and width in the analysis.
Compared to conventional postfracture
pressure transient analysis, the program
takes 10 to 15% more computer time on a
VAX or Sun workstation. In the future, it will
include capabilities to model the effects of
reservoir boundaries and high-velocity flow
on fracture length and conductivity estimates. The effects of reservoir boundaries
are often observed in transient tests of long
duration. These effects can be used to estimate the area and shape of the drainage
area of the well.
The Fracture Frontier: Rock Mechanics
Oilfield Review
Design of an Ideal Fracture Treatment
Fracture skin or lower fracture

conductivity?
Select fluids and additives that minimize

formation and proppant damage and
environmental impact.
Different reservoir model

permeability? Is reservoir
anisotropic? Layered?
Stress sensitive?
Obtain permeability and reservoir pressure

from well test; porosity from logs.
If not done earlier, perform microfrac to

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

model or length?
Stress revision.
If appropriate fracture geometry model not

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

model or less length.
Fluid revision.
Improved or expanded stress

and modulus data.
Obtain stress magnitude and Youngs

Modulus1 versus depth from logs, cores.
Also collect other well and formation
information: lithology, natural fracture
locations, porosity. Check offset well data.
Iteration for revisions.
Use net present value (NPV) calculation to

select proppant, optimize pump schedule
and fracture length, and predict production.
Finalize pump schedule with PLACEMENT

program. The program gives pressure
required during job, frac length at end of
job and distribution of proppant.
Execute job.
Do well test and use ZODIAC

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

during execution with various
fracture models.
No
Was bottomhole pressure

during execution as expected?
Yes
Fracture treatment
design is optimal.
1. Youngs Modulus is the ratio of stress (force per unit area) to strain (displacement per unit length).
October 1992
15
elastic continuum, meaning that deformation short of fracturing is fully reversible.

There is evidence that high-permeability/
high-porosity formations may be elastoplastic, meaning they have some component of
irreversible deformation (below ). Further
work on this is becoming possible with the
increase in computer power needed to solve
equations for nonelastic behavior, which are
far more complex than those for elastic
behavior. Significant nonelastic behavior
would affect the prediction of fracture
geometry and the analysis of fracture pressure data.
The Fracture Frontier: High-Angle Wells
Field experience in highly deviated and horizontal wells shows that it is possible to perform hydraulic fracturing in these settings,
but the effect on well performance is still
uncertain. Little has been published on the
effect of fracturing on deviated well performance. 28 Shell investigators found that
reduced productivity is expected from a
fractured deviated well compared to a fractured vertical well.29 This is because the axis
of the wellbore may not lie in the preferred
fracture plane and may intersect the fracture
over only a small reservoir interval. This
empirical curve showing the maximum

borehole deviation that will allow development of a single fracture.
Hallam and Last made these observations
based on studies in which they cemented or
cast a liner in a block of rock, then loaded
it. Work by CJ de Pater and colleagues
shows that if the block is first loaded, then
the liner is cemented, fracture geometry will
be different.32
Work by Hugo Morales at Dowell
Schlumberger, using a 3D fracture simulator
that permits curved fractures, shows that
fracture initiation pressure can be calculated
for deviated wells, given well inclination,
azimuth and direction of principal stresses.
But once the fracture starts, there is not yet a
calculation for propagation pressure. This is
because fracture propagation models do not
address how multiple fractures affect nearborehole stresses. A general recommendation, however, is that flow rate should be
high enough to reduce bridging of proppant
associated with pressure drops of multiple,
small fractures (next page ).
An evolving capability is triaxial borehole
seismic imaginglistening from three directions to sound emitted by the fracture as it
closes, then triangulating its location to find
results in limited communication to the

borehole during fracturing and a pressure
drop that inhibits productivity. In the Prudhoe Bay field, BP has found that fracturing
can impair the performance of highly deviated wells.30
Nevertheless, the increasing number of
deviated and horizontal wells has inspired
work on fracture modeling in these settings.
Today, fracture treatment design in these
wells is largely by rule of thumb. But several
observations have been made by Hallam
and Last of BP that can enhance treatment
design in deviated wells:31
When perforation tunnels are not normal
to the minimum stress, fractures reorient
in the preferred direction. If tunnels are
short compared to their spacing, the fractures will curve before linking up, resulting in further pressure drop. Perforation
length should therefore be at least onethird to one-half tunnel separation, that is,
4 to 6 in. [10 to 15 centimeters (cm)].
Perforation densities should be 6 shots/ft
at 60 phasing and 360/ shots/ft for
phasing.
A single large fracture is more productive
than several smaller ones that may not
link up. Hallam and Last constructed an
Conceptual Deformation Models
Continuous
solid
Fracture
Elastic/brittle or
elastoplastic
Planes of
continuous weakness
Discrete
blocks
Elastic and discontinuous plastic
Random
fractures
Plastic
CONTINUUM
nSeveral modes of rock response to stress. In rock mechanical terms, they are elastic continuous deformation,
brittle failure, discontinuous deformation of block-jointed rock, and pseudocontinuous deformation and plastic yield of heavily fractured rock. Current theories of fracturing and treatment design are limited because
they use elastic continuous deformation and brittle failure almost exclusively.
16
Oilfield Review
fracture length.33 This would provide valuable feedback in development of fracture

propagation models. Still, the weakest link
in the models is probably stress magnitude
determination. A confident measurement of
stress, by an economical and practical
method, would provide the required data
for evolving a fracture propagation model.
Probably as important as technical
improvements is a change in the engineering mindset. If only I had a fully 3D model,
all my problems would go away is perhaps
just half true. Often, the most sophisticated
fracture propagation models and fracture
treatment designs are undermined by something as simple and elusive as bad permeability data. In 3D modeling, major limitations remain in input datait is still difficult
to obtain valid stress profiles, fluid-loss profiles and fracture conductivities.
Today, fully 3D models help generate simpler models for routine application. Careful
postfracture evaluation allows the engineer
to tune fracture design, yielding the most
from the simplest approaches. Tomorrow,
increased computer power may place the
curving fracture of varying height and width
within reach of engineers in the field. JMK
28. One notable paper on the subject to date: Ovens J:

The Performance of Hydraulically Fractured Stimulated Wells in Tight Gas Sands: A Southern North
Sea Example, paper SPE 20972, presented at
Europec 90, The Hague, The Netherlands, October
22-24, 1990.
An overview of fracturing horizontal wells:
Soliman MY, Hunt JL and El Rabaa AM: Fracturing
Aspects of Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 18542, presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Charleston, West Virginia, USA, November 1-4,
1988; Journal of Petroleum Technology 42 (August
1990): 966-973.
Brown E, Thomas R and Milne A: The Challenge of
Completing and Stimulating Horizontal Wells, Oilfield Review 2, no. 3 (October 1990): 52-62.
29. Veeken CAM, Davies DR and Walters JV: Limited
Communication Between Hydraulic Fracture and
(Deviated) Wellbore, paper SPE 18982, presented
at the SPE Joint Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, USA, March 6-8, 1989.
30. Martins JP, Dyke GC, Abel JC, Ibe OE, Stewart G,
Bartel PA and Hanna RR: Analysis of a Hydraulic
Fracturing Program Performed on the Prudhoe Bay
Oil Field, paper SPE 24858, presented at the 67th
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Washington, DC, USA, October 4-7, 1992.
31. Hallam SD and Last NC: Geometry of Hydraulic
Fractures From Modestly Deviated Wellbores,
paper SPE 20656, presented at the 65th SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA, September 23-26, 1990.
32. de Pater CJ, personal communication, 1992.
33. Vinegar HJ, Willis PB, DeMartini DC, Shlyapobersky
J, Deeg WFJ, Adair RG, Woerpel JC, Fix JE and Sorrells GG: Active and Passive Seismic Imaging of
Hydraulic Fractures in Diatomite, paper SPE
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA,
October 6-9, 1991.
October 1992
Min.
horizontal
stress
Max.
horizontal
stress
Max.
horizontal
stress
Min.
horizontal
stress
Minimum
horizontal stress
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
nOrientation of hydraulic fractures in horizontal wells as a function of stress directions
(top) and, in a deviated well, evolution of small, multiple fractures that may contribute
to pressure drop at the wellbore (bottom). In the horizontal well example, only one large
fracture forms if the wellbore axis is normal to the minimum horizontal stress. If the
wellbore axis parallels the minimum horizontal stress, fractures form at each perforation. The end fractures are highest because they are affected on only one side by the
compressive stress exerted by the opening of the neighboring fracture. Height of these
end fractures tends not to exceed 2 to 3 borehole diameters. The time-lapse view (bottom) shows fractures developing tails that reach up and down the wellbore. By time 3,
they coalesce into one fracture. In so doing, rhomboids of rock are isolated between the
perforations. Small fractures develop here that may contribute to pressure drop at the
wellbore and early bridging of proppant.
17
Rewriting the Rules for High-Permeability Stimulation

Stimulation of high-permeability formations has long been the domain of matrix treatments.
Now, short, wide fractures are being created to
Joseph Ayoub
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Bob Cooper
Houston, Texas, USA
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Paul
Martins, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage,
Alaska, USA; and Jack Elbel and Richard Marcinew,
Dowell Schlumberger, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
18
A classic fracture stimulation creates narrow conduits that reach deep into a formationtypically, about 1/10 in. [2.5 millimeters] wide and up to 1000 ft [300 m] long.
Since the 1940s, relatively low-permeability formationsless than 20 millidarcies
(md)have been successfully fractured to
give worthwhile increases in productivity.
However, as formation permeability
increases, creating and propagating fractures become more difficult and economically less necessary. In high-permeability
reservoirs, formation damage is usually
diagnosed as the major restraint on productivity and matrix acidization treatments are
prescribed as the solution (see Trends in
Matrix Acidizing, page 24).
But matrix acidization cannot solve every
problem. The volume of damaged rock
sometimes requires uneconomically large
quantities of acid. The damage may be
beyond the reach of the matrix treatment.
Diverting acid into the right parts of the formation may also be difficult. Additionally,
the aqueous treatment fluid or the acid
itself may threaten the integrity of the wellbore by dissolving cementing material that
holds particles of rock together.
An alternative strategy for stimulating
high-permeability wells has therefore
emerged: the creation of fractures that are
typically less than 100 ft [30 m] long and
Undamaged reservoir
Damage
Bob Hanna
BP Exploration Inc.
Houston, Texas, USA
Short, wide fracture
nShort, wide fractures bypass widespread

formation damage and link undamaged
rock with the wellbore.
up to 1 in. [2.5 centimeters] wide after closure (above ). To appreciate how short, wide
fractures stimulate high-permeability formations, one must examine the factors governing postfracture productivity.
The permeability contrast between the
formation and the propped fracture is a key
determinant of the optimum fracture length.
In low-permeability formations there is a
large contrastand therefore a high relative
conductivityand increased fracture length
can yield improved productivity (next page ).
In high-permeability formations, relative
conductivity is about two orders of magnitude smaller. Increasing the length of conventional fractures offers only minimal
improvement in productivity and cannot be
justified economically. However, the productive performance of the fracture is determined by the dimensionless fracture conductivity which is directly proportional to
the fracture width.1 Conductivity can be
raised by increasing fracture width; in highpermeability formations, this offers significant potential improvements in productivity.
Oilfield Review
October 1992
High-permeability
formations
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Low-permeability
formations
0.6
Increasing productivity
Pinpointing the birthplace of high-permeability fracturing is difficult, but it is clear

that work carried out by Sohio Petroleum
Co. (now BP Exploration Inc.) inspired
much of todays thinking. In 1984, in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, USA, Sohio fractured a
well with a permeability of about 60 md.
The overriding aim of the exercise was to
stimulate the well while avoiding fracturing
into the oil/water contact (OWC) about 115
ft [35 m] below the lowermost perforation.2
In a relatively small fracturing treatment,
some 15,000 gal [57 m3] of gelled fluid
were pumped at 45 bbl/min, placing 12,000
lb [5440 kg] of proppant in the fracture.
This treatment was calculated to be sufficient to create a fracture with a propped
length of 43 ft [13 m], which, based on the
assumption that one foot of lateral extension would result in one foot of downward
fracture migration, left the fracture easily
short of the OWC. The treatment was a
mechanical success and production
increased by 133%versus a theoretical
maximum of 160%.
Rather than quantify fracture width, conventional terminology uses proppant concentrationmost commonly stated as
pounds of proppant per square foot of fracture [lbm/ft2 ]which is directly proportional
to the width. A conventional, long and narrow fracture may contain 0.5 lbm/ft 2 of
proppant. The Sohio job was designed to
place 1 lbm/ft2modest by todays standards, which aspire to place 4 lbm/ft2 or more.
After this job, attention shifted to the
North Sea. The Valhal field, offshore Norway, has a soft chalk reservoir. Amoco Production Co. found that, although the formation was not highly permeable (about 2 md)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
10 2
10 3
10 4
10 5
Length of fracture,
fracture length/drainage radius (x f /re)
reach beyond wellbore damage and provide a conduit to undamaged reservoir rock.
10 6
Relative conductivity
nIncrease in posttreatment productivity versus relative fracture

conductivityproportional to the permeability contrast between
the formation and propped fracturefor a variety of fracture
lengths (shown as fracture length/drainage radius). In these curves
for steady-state production, a normal, low-permeability fracture
treatment has a relative conductivity on the order of 10 5. Consequently, there is scope to increase productivity by increasing
fracture length.
But for high-permeability formations, relative conductivity is
about 10 3, and an increase in fracture length makes virtually no
difference. However, if a wider fracture can be created, fracture
conductivity is increased, yielding a higher relative conductivity. This increases productivity for a given fracture length and
offers the chance of raising productivity by increasing the fracture length.
Adapted from McGuire WJ and Sikora VJ: The Effect of Vertical
Fractures on Well Productivity, Transactions of the AIME 219 (1960):
401-403.
1. C = Kf W
fd
KX f
where: Cfd is the dimensionless fracture conductivity,
K f is the permeability of the proppant pack, W is the
width of the fracture, K is the permeability of the formation and X f is the length of the fracture.
2. Hannah RR and Walker EJ: Fracturing a High-Permeability Oil Well at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, paper SPE
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA,
19
Proppant
bridges
at tip
Proppant
Fluid
leakoff
Proppant
fills
fracture
nTip-screenout treatments place a high

proppant concentration and create fractures that are usually less than 100 ft long
and up to 1 in. wide.
A) The fracture is propagated to its
desired length just as the proppant in
the slurry begins to bridge off near the
tip of the fracture, preventing further
propagation.
B) Additional slurry is pumped into the
fracture increasing the net pressure
inside the fracture, causing it to widen.
C) Further dehydration of the slurry creates a pack of proppant that gradually
evolves from the tip toward the wellbore.
20
it was very unstable and conventional stimulation was difficult. After acid fracturing,
the acid-etched channels quickly collapsed
as pore pressure was reduced. And after a
conventional propped fracture, the proppant
became embedded in the soft rock, destroying fracture conductivity.
In 1986, Amoco opted to place a high
concentration of proppant in a wide fracture
using a technique it called tip screenout.
In normal fracturing, the tip should be the
final part of the fracture to be packed with
proppant. But in tip screenout, the proppant
forms a pack near the end of the fracture
early in the treatment. When additional
proppant-bearing slurry is pumped into the
fracture, its length cannot grow, so the width
increases (left ).3
At about the same time, in the UK sector
of the North Sea, BP Petroleum Development Ltd. was applying tip screenout techniques to stimulate gas wells in the Ravenspurn South field. Permeability was 2 md
higher than gas wells that are normally fractured, but BP found that conductivity of
long, conventional fractures limited the
reservoirs high rate of production, giving
only a threefold increase in production.
Laboratory tests showed that up to 0.5
lbm/ft2 of proppant in the fracture can be
lost largely through embedment. To combat this loss in conductivity, stimulation programs were designed to create wide fractures, typically placing 3 to 4 lbm/ft 2 of
proppant. This excess of proppant
ensured that enough remained in the fracture after embedment to deliver the
designed conductivity. Subsequent treatments in Ravenspurn South, using high
proppant concentrations, posted increases
in production of up to sevenfold.4
Tip screenout also returned to Prudhoe
Bay. Since 1989, BP and ARCO Alaska Inc.
have employed tip-screenout treatments and
report considerable success.5
However, following some tip-screenout

treatments, proppant flowed out of the
fracture during posttreatment production.
This is caused by factors such as low effective stress in the proppant pack or drag
forces due to high-velocity flow in the conductive pack. Proppant flowback leads to
reduced fracture conductivity or blockages
at the fracture-wellbore interface. If the
proppant is flowed to surface, damaging
erosion of the production equipment can
also occur.
Sand-control techniques have been
employed after fracturing to prevent proppant flowback. The two main techniques
use resin-coated proppant or gravel packing. Proppant coated with a curable resin
consolidates once the proppant has been
placed in the fracture and resists drag during
production. Alternatively, the fracture treatment can be followed by a gravel pack
using a conventional screen to retain the
proppant within the fracture (see Sand
Control: Why and How? page 41).
In Indonesia, more than 30 treatments
have been carried out that combine tipscreenout fracturing with either resin consolidation or a gravel pack. These wells had
high skin factors but undamaged permeabilities in excess of 100 md. Following treatment, many now produce with low skin factors while adjacent conventionallycompleted wells have skins of 20 to 40 (see
Average Data From Three Types of Treatment, next page, below left ).6
Tip-screenout fracturing and gravel packing treatments are also being used in combination in the Gulf of Mexico, USA. Over the
past 12 months, more than a dozen combined treatments in formations with permeabilities as high as 1 darcy have realized
two- to threefold improvements in production (next page, below right).
Experience around the world has enabled
development of a methodology for selecting
3. Smith MB, Miller WK and Haga J: Tip Screenout

Fracturing: A Technique for Soft, Unstable Formations,
SPE Production Engineering 2 (May 1987): 95-103.
4. Martins JP, Leung KH, Jackson MR Stewart, DR and
Carr AH: Tip Screen-Out Fracturing Applied to the
Ravenspurn South Gas Field Development, paper
SPE 19766, presented at the 64th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
5. Reimers DR and Clausen RA: High-Permeability
Fracturing at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, paper SPE 22835,
presented at the 66th SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
Martins JP, Bartel PA, Kelly RT, Ibe OE and Collins PJ:
Small Highly Conductive Hydraulic Fractures Near
Reservoir Fluid Contacts: Applications to Prudhoe
Bay, paper SPE 24856, presented at the 67th Annual
SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington
DC, USA, October 4-7, 1992.
6. Peters FW, Cooper RE and Lee B: Pressure-Pack

Stimulation Restores Damaged Wells Productivity,
paper IPA 88064, Proceedings Indonesian Petroleum
Association 17th Annual Convention, Jakarta, Indonesia, October 1988.
Peters FW and Cooper RE: A New Stimulation Technique for Acid-Sensitive Formations, paper SPE
19490, presented at the SPE Asia-Pacific Conference,
Sydney, Australia, September 13-15, 1989.
7. Ayoub JA, Kirksey JM, Malone BP and Norman WD:
Hydraulic Fracturing of Soft Formations in the Gulf
Coast, paper SPE 23805, presented at the SPE Formation Damage Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA,
February 26-27, 1992.
Oilfield Review
wells for tip-screenout treatments. 7 There

are three classes of candidate:
Reservoirs with significant wellbore damage, perhaps caused by formation collapse as the pore pressure reduces during
depletion. Past matrix treatments have
failed, and short, wide fractures are
designed to bypass the damage and connect the undamaged part of the reservoir
with the wellbore.
Reservoirs with fines migration. A short,
wide fracture can alleviate this by reducing pressure losses and velocities in the
reservoir sand near the wellbore.
Multiple pay zones in laminated sandshale sequences. The thin sand laminae
may not communicate efficiently with the
wellbore until a fracture provides a continuous connection to the perforations
(above, right ).
Candidate selection is a multidisciplinary
task. Basic openhole logs detect sands and
their bounding shales, and indicate their relative permeability and degree of invasiongaining an insight into the formations
natural permeability before damage, the
depth of invasion, the presence of zones
Proppant
nLaminated pay zone with sand-shale sequences. The sand laminae may be connected to the wellbore by short, wide fractures.
thinner than 5 ft (1.5 m) and the formation
strength. Specialized techniques like
microresistivity logging may then be used to
detect thinner layers of interbedded sandshale laminae. Logs also detect water-bearing zones which must be considered during
the design. Pressure transient analysis is
used to identify wellbore damage and quantify the production potential of the well.
After a candidate well has been identified,

the next stage is to design the treatment, a
process that relies on knowledge of the
rocks mechanical properties and an estimate of the stresses in the reservoir and
adjacent rock (see Cracking Rock: Progress
in Fracture Treatment Design, page 4 ).
Simulation
Data
10 3
Average Data From Three Types of Treatment

Average data
Type A
Type B
Type C
7240
3560
4400
Zone thickness, ft
68
32
48
Zone permeability, md
72
53
60
Pad volume, gal
1600
5100
3500
Slurry volume, gal
685
2000
1740
3.8
2.1
1.2
Total vertical depth, ft
In-situ proppant concentration,
lbm/ft2
Propped fracture length, ft
28
Propped fracture conductivity, md-ft
5670
Pretreatment oil production, BPD
1040
Posttreatment oil production, BPD
2140
Pretreatment skin
October 1992
156
1313
Fractured
Nonfractured
10 2
0
30
60
90
Production time, days
nPredicted and real productivity increase in a Gulf of Mexico, USA, well stimulated in early 1992 using tip-screenout
fracturing.
18
Posttreatment skin
Treatment Type A
A series of six Indonesian
wells fractured using the
tip-screenout technique.
Although all the wells were
potential sand producers no
special sand-control
techniques were employed.
115
Production rate, B/D
Treatment Type
2.3
Treatment Type B
Two Indonesian wells
fractured with tip-screenout
treatments performed
through gravel-pack tools
and screens to place a
small, highly conductive
fracture and a gravel pack
in a single step.
Treatment Type C
Series of treatments
performed on two offshore
exploration wells to create
vertical communication
between several thin, highpermeability zones that
were believed to be waterand acid-sensitive.
21
Mechanical properties can be derived

using cores, logs and direct in-situ measurements. In many cases, however, retrieving
good cores and then accurately testing them
in the laboratory are difficult. Log-derived
mechanical properties rely on density and
sonic measurements. Both compressional
and shear sonic measurements work well in
consolidated, fast formations. But in soft,
slow formations, conventional sonic tools
cannot measure shear wave velocity. However, a recently introduced dipole sonic tool
can now make these shear wave velocity
measurements in any formation.8
In practice, there is rarely a comprehensive collection of core and log data with
which to build a model predicting fracture
shape, used for treatment design. To plug
this knowledge gap, data are collected using
stress tests.
Stress tests consist of pumping a relatively
small volume of ungelled fluid without
22
nFracturing high-permeability formations

in Indonesia. A specially modified twin
50-bbl mixer is capable of mixing and
pumping 18 lbm/gal slurries at more than
20 bbl/min. A centralized control station
allows one operator to control and monitor
the complete treatmentessential as pumping times can be as short as 2 minutes.
proppant into the formation at sufficient

pressure to fracture the well. In normal,
low-permeability stress tests pumping is
then stopped and the pressure can be monitored during flowback. However, in highpermeability formations, the fluid normally
leaks off into the formation rather than flowing back. Stress test are repeated several
times and the resulting pressure measure-
ments are used to determine the minimum

in-situ stress, which equals the closure pressure of the fracture.
Analysis of data from stress tests and
larger-volume calibration testswhich fracture the formation usually using gelled fluid
without proppantenables choice of the
most suitable fracture geometry model and
confirmation of the fluid leakoff coefficient.
Fracture geometry models of varying sophistication are available. All of them use the
basic processes that occur during fracturingfluid flow in the fracture and leakoff,
proppant transportation and settling, and
rock responseto describe the relationship
Oilfield Review
October 1992
the proppant size, the greater the fracture

permeability. In gravel packs, the sand must
have intergranular spaces small enough to
keep formation sand at bay.
To date, most wells have been treated
using the same size proppant for the fracture
and the gravel pack. This simplifies procedures but in most cases, proppant size tends
to be smallerand therefore of lower conductivitythan would ideally have been
employed if fracturing had been carried out
alone. ARCO has been performing treatments with larger than normal sand sizes.9
After the job is completed, the first performance yardstick is its mechanical successHas everything gone according to
plan? The effectiveness of the treatment
may then be assessed by comparing theoretical net pressures (fracture propagation pressure minus closure pressure) with pressures
measured during the treatment by down-
hole memory gauges (below ). Other placement evaluation techniques include use of
multiple-isotope tracers in the sand and
temperature logs to estimate the fracture
height and assess the fractures communication with the perforated interval along the
wellbore by tracing cooling anomalies
where the fluid has entered the formation.
However, the most important indicators of
success are the wells production responses
both immediately after treatment and during
the rest of its productive life. To date, these
indicate that the traditional guidelines ruling
out fracturing for high-permeability formations have been successfully rewritten.CF
8. Taking Advantage of Shear Waves, Oilfield Review
4, no. 3 (July 1992): 52-54.
9. Hainey BW and Troncoso JC: Frac-Pack: An Innovative Stimulation and Sand Control Technique, paper
SPE 23777, presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, USA, February 26-27, 1992.
Simulation
Data
1000
500
Net pressure, psi
between pressure and fracture shape and

produce criteria for fracture propagation.
The models assume that rock is an elastic
material, meaning that its deformation is
reversible. Dowell Schlumberger is currently examining whether this assumption
holds for soft formations, as it is an important factor when looking at the fracture closure and the stress it exerts on the proppant
pack. If closure stress is less than anticipated, the proppant pack could become
unstable during productionunless the
treatment has included a gravel pack.
Calibration tests also provide a more
accurate way of measuring fluid-loss characteristics of the fracturing fluid than can be
devised in a laboratory. Fluid loss depends
on the viscosity and wall-building capability
of the fracturing fluid, the viscosity and
compressibility of the reservoir fluid, and
the permeability and porosity of the formation. In a formation with high porosity and
permeability, fluid loss can be controlled by
increasing the viscosity of the fracturing
fluid or enhancing the fluids wall-building
capability on the fracture face by the addition of polymers and properly sized fluidloss control agents.
Once the choice of fracturing fluid is confirmed, the next step is to design a pumping
schedule capable of delivering the necessary high proppant concentrations. The data
generated by stress and calibration tests are
fed into the chosen fracture geometry
model, which calculates the volume
required to initially propagate the fracture to
a predetermined length. To ensure tip
screenout, proppant concentration in the
fracture fluid is gradually increased during
the treatment from zero at the start, to more
than 16 lbm/gal at the end.
Continuous mix and batch mix treatments
using high concentrations of proppant have
been executed fairly smoothly. In the larger
continuous mix jobs maintaining high concentrations of sand may require specialized
blending equipment (previous page).
Choice of proppant size depends on the
ultimate fracture conductivity needed and
whether the treatment is being carried out in
conjunction with a gravel pack. The larger
100
10
20
50
100
Production time, days
nComparing simulated pressures with the real thing. The

effectiveness of a treatment can be judged by comparing
theoretical net pressures with pressures measured during
the job using downhole gauges. This plot of a tip-screenout fracturing job shows excellent agreement between
the simulated and actual pressures.
23
Trends in Matrix Acidizing
Curtis Crowe
Jacques Masmonteil
Eric Touboul
Saint-Etienne, France
Ron Thomas
Montrouge, France
Faced with poor production from a high-permeability reservoir, an operators first thought
is a matrix treatment. This commonly involves pumping acid into the near-wellbore region
to dissolve formation damage and create new pathways for production. This article
reviews the state of the art of matrix acidizing and discusses how technical breakthroughs are helping optimize matrix acid jobs.
The simple aim of matrix acidizing is to
improve productionreduce skin in reservoir engineer parlanceby dissolving formation damage or creating new pathways
within several inches to a foot or two
around the borehole. This is done by pumping treatment fluid at relatively low pressure
to avoid fracturing the formation. Compared
with high-pressure fracturing, matrix acidizing is a low-volume, low-budget operation.
Matrix acidizing is almost as old as oilwell drilling itself. A Standard Oil patent for
acidizing limestone with hydrochloric acid
[HCl] dates from 1896, and the technique
was first used a year earlier by the Ohio Oil
Company. Reportedly, oil wells increased in
production three times, and gas wells four
times. Unfortunately there was a snagthe
acid severely corroded the well casing. The
technique declined in popularity and lay
dormant for about 30 years.
Then in 1931, Dr. John Grebe of the Dow
Chemical Company discovered that arsenic
inhibited the action of HCl on metal. The
following year, the Michigan-based Pure Oil
Company requested assistance from Dow
Chemical Company to pump 500 gallons of
24
HCl into a limestone producer using arsenic

as an inhibitor. The previously dead well
produced 16 barrels of oil per day, and
interest in acidizing was reborn. Dow
formed a subsidiary later called Dowell to
handle the new business (next page, top).
Three years later, Halliburton Oil Well
Cementing Co. also began providing a commercial acidizing service.
Sandstone acidizing with hydrofluoric
acid [HF]hydrochloric acid does not react
with silicate mineralswas patented by
Standard Oil company in 1933, but experiments in Texas the same year by an independent discoverer of the technique caused
plugging of a permeable formation. Commercial use of HF had to wait until 1940,
when Dowell hit on the idea of combining
it with HCl to reduce the possibility of reaction products precipitating out of solution
and plugging the formation. The mixture,
called mud acid, was first applied in the
Gulf Coast to remove mudcake damage.1
Oilfield Review
nEarly acidizing
operations by Dowell, a division of

Dow Chemical
established in 1932.
Chemistry
Matrix acidizing of carbonates and silicates

are worlds apart.2 Carbonate rocks, comprising predominantly limestone and
dolomite, rapidly dissolve in HCl and create
reaction products that are readily soluble in
water:
CaCO3 + 2HCl CaCl2 + CO2 + H2O
Limestone
Hydrochloric
acid
Calcium
chloride
Carbon
dioxide
Water
CaMg(CO3)2 + 4HCl
Dolomite
Hydrochloric acid
CaCl2 + MgCl2 + 2CO2 + 2H2O .

Calcium
chloride
nMold of wormholes created by HCl in
limestone from a central conduit. Acid dissolves the rock as soon as it reaches the
grain surface. Matrix acidizing in carbonates aims to create new pathways for production rather than removing damage.
October 1992
Magnesium
chloride
Carbon
dioxide
Water
The rate of dissolution is limited mainly by

the speed with which acid can be delivered
to the rock surface. This results in rapid generation of irregularly shaped channels,
called wormholes (left ). The acid increases
production by creating bypasses around the
damage rather than directly removing it.
By comparison, the reaction between HF
and sandstones is much slower. Mud
acidizing seeks to unblock existing pathways for production by dissolving wellbore
damage and minerals filling the interstitial
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to A.

Ayorinde, Ashland Oil Nigeria Ltd, Lagos, Nigeria; Jim
Collins, Dowell Schlumberger, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
Harry McLeod Jr, Conoco, Houston, Texas, USA; Arthur
Milne, Dowell Schlumberger, Dubai; Carl Montgomery,
ARCO Oil and Gas Co., Plano, Texas, USA; Giovanni
Paccaloni, AGIP S.p.A., Milan, Italy; and Ray Tibbles,
Dowell Schlumberger, Lagos, Nigeria.
In this article, CORBAN, FoamMAT, MatCADE,
MatTIME, PARAN and ProMAT are trademarks or service
marks of Dowell Schlumberger; NODAL (production
system analysis) and Formation MicroScanner are marks
of Schlumberger.
1. A classic paper on sandstone acidizing:
Smith CF and Hendrickson AR: Hydrofluoric Acid
Stimulation of Sandstone Reservoirs, Journal of
Petroleum Technology 17 (February 1965): 215-222.
2. For general reference:
Economides MJ and Nolte KG (eds): Reservoir Stimulation, 2nd ed. Houston, Texas, USA: Schlumberger
Educational Services, 1989.
Acidizing: SPE Reprint Series No. 32. Richardson,
Texas, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1991.
Schechter RS: Oil Well Stimulation. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall, 1992.
25
After acid
Mud acid
Before acid
Fluoboric acid
pore space, rather than by creating new

pathways. The HF reacts mainly with the
associated minerals of sandstones, rather
than the quartz (right ). The acid reactions
caused by the associated mineralsclays,
feldspars and micascan create precipitants that may cause plugging. Much of the
design of a sandstone acid job is aimed at
preventing this (see HF Reactions in Sandstones, below ).
The usual practice is to preflush the formation with HCl to dissolve associated carbonate minerals. If these were left to react
with HF, they would produce calcium fluoride [CaF2], which precipitates easily. Then
the HF-HCl mud acid is injected. Finally,
the formation is overflushed with weak HCl,
hydrocarbon or ammonium chloride
[NH4Cl]. This pushes reaction products far
from the immediate wellbore zone so that if
precipitation occurs, production is not too
constricted when the well is brought back
on line.
Another plugging danger is from fine particles, native to the sandstone, dislodged by
the acid but not fully dissolved. To minimize
this eventuality, Shell in 1974 proposed
lower pumping ratesless likely to dislodge
finesand, more important, a chemical system that did not contain HF explicitly,
instead creating it through a chain of reactions within the formation.3 In principle, this
allows greater depth of penetration and
longer reaction times for maximum dissolution of fines. Since then, several other systems of in-situ generatedso-called
retardedmud acid systems have been proposed. Recently, Dowell Schlumberger
nScanning electron micrographs showing pore-filling clays before and after expo-
sure to both regular mud acid and fluoboric acid. In the fluoboric acid micrographs,
some clays, lower left, are dissolved while others, kaolinite platelets in the middle of
the photographs, are partially fused preventing fines migration.
introduced a retarded acid system using fluoboric acid [HBF4]. This hydrolyzes in water
to form HF:4
HBF4 + H2O HBF3OH + HF .
Fluoboric
acid
Water
Hydroxyfluoboric Hydrofluoric
acid
acid
As HF is spent, dissolving clays and other

minerals, it is constantly replenished
through hydrolysis from the remaining fluoboric acid. The slow rate of this conversion
helps guarantee a retarded action and therefore deeper HF penetration. As a bonus, the
fluoboric acid itself reacts with the clays and
HF Reactions in Sandstones
The reaction of hydrofluoric acid [HF] on the pure
quartz component of sandstone follows these two
Quartz, feldspars,
chert and mica.
Pore-lining clays,
e.g. illite
equations:
SiO2 + 4HF
Quartz
Secondary cement:
carbonate, quartz
Acid
SiF4 + 2H2O
2F
SiF62
Some of these products combine with free
in the spending acid:

,
sodium fluosilicate [Na2SiF6],

sodium fluoaluminate [Na3AlF6],
potassium fluosilicate [K2SiF6],
resulting mainly in the silicon hexafluoride anion,

SiF62.
Reaction with the feldspar, chert, mica and clay
components of sandstones also results in this
anion, but, in addition, produces a range of alu-
26
of free fluoride ions in the dissolving solution.
four compounds with varying degrees of solubility
Silicon hexafluoride
minum complexes:
aluminum complex depends on the concentration
sodium, potassium, and calcium ions to produce
Silicon
Water
tetrafluoride
and
SiF4 +
AlF52 and AlF63 (left). The concentration of each
AlF2+, AlF2+, AlF3, AlF4,
Pore-filling
clays, e.g. kaolinite
nConstituents of sandstone, all of which are soluble in
calcium fluosilicate [CaSiF6].

Matrix treatments are always designed to prevent
the formation of these compounds, to remove any
risk of precipitation.
HCl-HF mud acid systems.
Oilfield Review
Diversion
3000
Mud acid treatment

2000
1000
A challenge that must be faced in either

lithology is diversion. As acid is pumped, it
flows preferentially along the most permeable path into the formation. The acid opens
these paths up even more, and less permeable, damaged zones are almost guaranteed
not to receive adequate treatment. Some
technique to divert the treatment fluid
toward more damaged formation or damaged perforations is therefore mandatory.
There is a variety of diversion techniques
(next page ). Treatment fluid can be directed
exclusively toward a low-permeability zone
using drillpipe or coiled-tubing conveyed
tools equipped with mechanical packers.
Alternatively, flow can be blocked at individual perforations taking most of the treatment fluid by injecting ball sealers that seat
on the perforations. In carbonates, bridging
agents such as benzoic acid particles or salt
can be used to create a filter cake inside
wormholes, encouraging the acid to go elsewhere. In sandstones, microscopic agents
such as oil-soluble resins can create a filter
cake on the sand face. Chemical diverters
such as viscous gels and foams created with
Silicon hexafluoride also combines with water

to produce colloidal silica [H4SiO4]:
SiF62 + H2O
4000
Production, BLPD
silt, forming borosilicates that appear to help

bind the fines to large grains (previous page,
top ). Recent treatments with fluoboric acid
for Ashland Nigeria have confirmed the
power of this technique (right).5
All in all, sandstone acidizing poses a
greater challenge than carbonate acidizing
and certainly generates more than its fair
share of controversy among both operators
and service companies.
H4SiO4 + 4HF + 2F .
Fluoboric acid treatment

0
nProduction improvement in a Nigerian oil well after fluoboric
acid treatment. The well was initially acidized with mud acid and
produced 850 barrels of liquid per day (BLPD) with a 34% water
cut. Production then declined almost to zero, most likely due to
fines movement. After fluoboric acid treatment, production rose to
2500 BLPD, obviating the need for further acid treatments. Oil production a year after the treatment was 220 BOPD. (From Ayorinde et
al, reference 5, courtesy of Ashland Nigeria.)
nitrogen are used to block high-permeability

pathways within the matrix (see Diverting
with Foam, page 30).
The requirements on any diverting agent
are stringent. The agent must have limited
solubility in the carrying fluid, so it reaches
the bottom of the hole intact; it must not
react adversely with formation fluids; it must
divert acid. Finally, it must clean up rapidly
so as not to impede later production. Ball
sealers drop into the rathole as soon as
Al3 + 3F
AlF3 ,
and
Al3 + 3OH
Al(OH)3 .
This precipitate has proved controversial. Experts
However, these two compounds can generally be
agree that it cannot be avoided, but disagree
avoided through proper design of preflush and
about whether it damages the formation. Some
mud acid formulation.
believe it does, but work by Dowell Schlumberger
Time, yr
Often, acidizing can produce ferrous and ferric
3. Templeton CC, Richardson EA, Karnes GT and

Lybarger JH: Self-Generating Mud Acid, Journal of
Petroleum Technology 27 (October 1975): 1199-1203.
4. Thomas RL and Crowe CW: Matrix Treatment
Employs New Acid System for Stimulation and Control of Fines Migration in Sandstone Formations,
paper SPE 7566, presented at the 53rd SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
5. Ayorinde A, Granger C and Thomas RL: The Application of Fluoboric Acid in Sandstone Matrix Acidizing: A Case Study, presented at the 21st Annual Convention of the Indonesian Petroleum Association,
October 6-8, 1992.
CaCO3 + HF
CaF2 + H2O + CO2 .
The main technique for avoiding calcium fluoride

precipitation is the HCl preflush, designed to
remove carbonate material before HF is injected.
Precipitates and their potential to damage the
formation remain a fact of life for the matrix
acidizer. But their impact can be greatly mini-
researcher Curtis Crowe suggests that colloidal
ions, either from dissolving rust in the tubulars or
mized through use of an adequate preflush, the
silica coats sandstone particle surfaces, actually
through direct action on iron minerals in the for-
correct mud acid formulation, and the avoidance
limiting the movement of fines that the treatment
mation. These ions can then produce more pre-
of any salts except ammonium chloride.
would otherwise dislodge.1
cipitates: ferric hydroxide [Fe(OH)3] and, in sour
Two other aluminum-based compoundsalumi-
wells, ferrous sulfide [FeS]. Various chelating
num fluoride [AlF3] and aluminum hydroxide [Al(OH)3]
and reducing agents are employed to minimize
may precipitate, following these reactions:
the impact of these two compounds.
1. Crowe CW: Precipitation of Hydrated Silica From Spent

Hydrofluoric Acid: How Much of a Problem Is It? Journal of Petroleum Technology 38 (November 1986): 12341240.
Lastly, damage can arise through the precipitation of calcium fluoride [CaF2], when HF reacts
with the carbonate mineralogy of sandstones:
October 1992
27
Openhole completion ?
Chemical
Yes No
Gravel packed ?
Chemical
Yes No
Mechanical
Coiled tubing
available ?
Yes No
Chemical
Staged treatment
required ?
Yes No
Chemical
Flowback of
balls a problem,
or high shot density ?
Yes No
Mechanical ball sealers
nChoosing a diversion method for matrix acidizing.

injection halts or, if they are of the buoyant
variety, they are caught in ball catchers at
the surface. Benzoic acid particles dissolve
in hydrocarbons. Oil-soluble resins are
expelled or dissolved during the ensuing
hydrocarbon production. Gels and foams
break down with time.
In practice, acid and diverting agents are
pumped in alternating stages: first acid, then
diverter, then acid, then diverter, and so on.
The number of stages depends on the length
of zone being treated. Typically, one aciddiverter stage combination is planned for
every 15 to 25 ft [5 to 8 m] of formation.
28
Diagnosis
If the principle of matrix acidizing appears

straightforward, the practice is a mine field
of complex decisions. Service companies
offer a vast selection of acid systems and
diverters, and few people would design the
same job the same way. In addition, matrix
acid jobs are low budget, typically between
$5000 and $10,000 an operation, so the
careful attention given to planning much
more expensive acid fracturing treatments is
often missing. Matrix acidizing is traditionally carried out using local rules of thumb.
Worse, jobs are poorly evaluated.
The question that should always be asked

before any other is Why is the well underproducing? And then: Will production
increase with matrix acidizing? Production
may be constricted for a reason other than
damage around the borehole. The only way
to find out is through pressure analysis from
the deep formation through to the wellhead,
using production history, well tests and
analysis of the wells flowing pressures, such
as provided by NODAL analysis.6
The crude maxim that matrix acidizing
will benefit any well with positive skin has
Oilfield Review
nAnalyzing causes of poor production in a gas well using NODAL
p wellhead
2 shots per foot
psi
3000
Bottomhole flowing pressure, psi 103
4
3
1000
100
2
1
Causes of High Skin, Other Than Damage
50
30
0
5
(from McLeod, reference 7.)
12 shots per foot

3000
4
3
1000
100
skin
1
30
0
analysis of well pressures, from downhole to wellhead. In each

figure, well performance is presented by the intersection of a tubing-intake curveupward-sloping lines, one for each wellhead
pressureand an inflow-performance curvedownward-sloping
lines, one for each skin value.
The top NODAL analysis shows inflow performance assuming
the well was perforated at two shots per foot, the bottom analysis
assuming 12 shots per foot. The tubing-intake curves are the same
in both NODAL figures.
At two shots per foot, decreasing skin with matrix acidizing
offers only marginal production improvement. At 12 shots per foot,
matrix acidizing will offer substantial production improvement.
50
0
5000
15
10000
0
15000
High liquid/gas ratio in a gas well > 100 bbl/MMscf

High gas/oil ratio in an oil well > 1000 scf/bbl
Three-phase production: water, oil and gas
High-pressure drawdown > 1000 psi
High flow rate > 20 B/D/ft
> 5 B/D/shot
Low perforation shot density < 4 shots per foot
Well perforated with zero-degree phasing
Well perforated with through-tubing gun, diameter < 2 in.
Reservoir pressure > bubblepoint pressure > wellbore pressure
Gas production rate, Mscf/D
Tubing
Gravel pack/
perforations
Scales
Organic deposits
Bacteria
Silts and clays
Emulsion
Water block
Formation
nTypes of damage
and where they

can occur. Diagnosing location
and type of damage is the key to
successful matrix
acidizing.
Wettability change
several exceptions. Too low a perforation

density, multiphase flow, and turbulent gas
flow are some factors that cause positive
skin in wells that otherwise may be undamaged. Stimulation expert Harry McLeod of
Conoco has established a checklist of warning indicators (seeCauses of High Skin,
Other Than Damage, top, right ).7
NODAL analysis, which predicts a wells
steady-state production pressures, refines
this checklist. For example, by comparing
tubing-intake curvesessentially the
expected pressure drop in the tubing as a
function of production ratewith the wells
October 1992
inflow-performance curveexpected flow

into the well as a function of downhole well
pressureone can readily see if the well
completion is restricting flow (top, left).
Comparing a NODAL analysis with actual
measured pressures also helps pinpoint the
location of any damage. Damage does not
occur only in the formation surrounding the
borehole. It can occur just as easily inside
tubing, in a gravel-pack or in a gravel-pack
perforation tunnel (above).
6. Mach J, Proano E and Brown KE: A Nodal Approach

for Applying Systems Analysis to the Flowing and Artificial Lift Oil or Gas Well, paper SPE 8025, March 5,
1979, unsolicited.
7. McLeod HO: Significant Factors for Successful
Matrix Acidizing, paper NMT 890021, presented at
the Centennial Symposium Petroleum Technology
into the Second Century, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico, USA,
October 16-19, 1989.
29
Fluid N2
since
1969.1
By the usual criteria, it is almost
perfect. It is cheap to produce; it does a decent

job diverting; it does not interact adversely with
the formation and formation fluids; and it cleans
up rapidly. Foam is produced by injecting nitrogen into soapy watertypically, nitrogen occu-
Thief
nLaboratory setup for
Acid
Flow rate, bbl/min/20-ft zone
been used as a diverter in sandstone acidizing
Foam
1.25
Preflush
Foam, a stable mixture of liquid and gas, has
Damage
Diverting with Foam
Damaged zone
0.75
0.5
0.25
pies 55 to 75% of foam volume. The soapy water
Thief zone
is a mixture of water and small amount of surfac-
0
0
tant, or foamer. Injected downhole, foam pene-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
investigating foam diversion, using two sand

packs, one with high
permeability mimicking
a thief zone, the other
with low permeability
mimicking a damaged
zone. Conventional foam
diversion works fine for
a while60 minutes in
this examplebut then
breaks down.
Time, min
trates the pore space where the cumulatively viscous effect of the bubbles blocks further entry of
tant before injecting the foam and also injecting
cent period, foam in low-permeability sand pre-
the treating fluid.
surfactant with every subsequent stage in the
maturely breaks downscientists are not sure
Foams only drawback is that with time the
acid process. The surfactant adheres to the rock
why. The combination of surfactant injection and
bubbles break and diversion ceases. This can be
surface and minimizes adsorption of surfactant
10-minute shut-in comprises the new FoamMAT
seen in laboratory experiments, in which foam is
contained in foam, preserving the foam.
diversion service that has seen successful appli-
injected simultaneously through two long sand
As before, the foam progressively diverts treat-
cation in the Gulf of Mexico and Africa (see Field

Case Studies, below).2
packs, one with high permeability mimicking a
ment fluid to the damaged zone, but now the
thief zone, the other with low permeability mim-
diversion holds for at least 100 minutes (next
icking a damaged zone (above, right). The cores
page, top). If necessary, damaged formation can
lent blockage of water zones in high water-cut
are preflushed and then injected with foam. Then,
first be cleaned with mutual solvent to remove oil
wells. In a laboratory simulation, two sand packs
acid is injected. At first, diversion works fine, with
in the near-wellbore regionoil destroys
were constructed with the same permeability but
the low-permeability sand pack taking an
foamand to ensure the rock surface is water-
saturated with different fluids, water and oil (next
increasingly greater proportion of the acid. But
wet and receptive to the surfactant.
page, bottom). The preflush injection of surfactant
after about one hour, the foam has broken and the
thief zone starts monopolizing the treatment fluid.
Yet further improvement to foam diversion can
The FoamMAT technique also provides excel-
can be seen to favor, as expected, the water zone.
be achieved by halting injection for about 10 min-
Then foam was injected into both packs. When
utes after foam injection. The diversion of treat-
acid was injected, most went into the oil zone
neering center at Saint-Etienne, France discov-
ment fluid to the damaged sand pack now takes
confirming an almost perfect diversion.
ered that this breakdown can be postponed by
effect almost immediately, rather than almost 50
saturating the formation with a preflush of surfac-
minutes. It seems that given a 10-minute quies-
Researchers at the Dowell Schlumberger engi-
Field Case Studies

Well type
30
Depth
ft
Interval
ft
Temperature
F
Production
High water-cut
oil well
9600
51
190
433 BOPD
41% water cut
Gas lift
855 BOPD
38% water cut
FTP: 2100 psi @ 2 months
Gas well
6600
16
175
2 MMscf/D
3 BOPD
FTP: 1000 psi
5.6 MMscf/D
17 BOPD
FTP: 2100 psi @ 2 months
Oil well
11200
40
240
Low-perm
gas well
11,900
200
245
before
0
1.8 MMscf/D
FTP: 250 psi
after
860 BOPD
FTP: 220 psi @ 1 week
4.0 MMscf/D
FTP: 400 psi @ 1 month
Oilfield Review
nImprovement in stay-
Acid
Preflush
Foam
No shut-in
1.25
Damaged zone
0.75
0.5
0.25
Thief zone
0
Acid
Shut-in
Preflush
Foam
Shut-in
1.25
ing power of foam diversion, using a preflush of

surfactant and further
surfactant injection with
the acid (top). Further
improvement in foam
diversion is obtained by
having a shut-in period
following foam injection
(bottom). During this
quiescent period, foam
in low-permeability sands
breaks down and diversion becomes immediate.
Damaged zone
0.75
0.5
0.25
Thief zone
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time, min
Flow rate, bbl/min/20 ft zone
1.25
Foam
Preflush
nEfficacy of FoamMAT
Acid
diversion in high watercut wells, proved in a

laboratory experiment
using two sand packs
of the same permeability, but initially saturated
with oil and water,
respectively.
Water zone
0.75
0.5
0.25
Oil zone
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Time, min
1. Smith CL, Anderson JL and Roberts PG: New Diverting

Techniques for Acidizing and Fracturing, paper SPE
2751, presented at the 40th SPE Annual California
Regional Meeting, San Francisco, California, USA,
November 6-7, 1969.
A recent case-study paper:
Kennedy DK, Kitziger FW and Hall BE: Case Study of the
Effectiveness of Nitrogen Foam and Water-Zone Diverting
Agents in Multistage Matrix Acid Treatments, SPE Production Engineering 7, no. 2 (May 1992): 203-211.
October 1992
2. Zerhboub M, Touboul E, Ben-Naceur K and Thomas RL:

Matrix Acidizing: A Novel Approach to Foam Diversion,
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA,
October 6-9, 1991.
Damage
Scales, organic deposits and bacteria are
three types of damage that can cause havoc
anywhere, from the tubing to the gravel
pack, to the formation pore space. Scales
are mineral deposits that in the lower pressure and temperature of a producing well
precipitate out of the formation water, forming a crust on formation rock or tubing.
With age, they become harder to remove.
The treatment fluid depends on the mineral
type, which may be a carbonate deposit,
sulfate, chloride, an iron-based mineral, silicate or hydroxide. The key is knowing
which type of scale is blocking flow.
Reduced pressure and temperature also
cause heavy organic molecules to precipitate out of oil and block production. The
main culprits are asphaltenes and paraffinic
waxes. Both are dissolved by aromatic solvents. Far more troublesome are sludges
that sometimes occur when inorganic acid
reacts with certain heavy crudes. There is
no known way of removing this type of
damage, so care must be taken to avoid it
through use of antisludging agents.
Bacteria are most commonly a problem in
injection wells, and they can exist in an
amazing variety of conditions, with and
without oxygen, typically doubling their
population every 20 minutes or so.8 The
result is a combination of slimes and
assorted amorphous mess that blocks production. An additional reason for cleansing
the well of these organisms is to kill the socalled sulfate-reducing bacteria that live off
sulfate ions in water either in the well or
formation. Sulfate-reducing bacteria produce hydrogen sulfide that readily corrodes
tubulars. Bacterial damage can be cleaned
with sodium hypochlorite and it is as important to clean surface equipment, whence
injection water originates, as it is to clean
the well and formation.
Two further types of damage can contribute to blocked flow in gravel pack and
formationsilts and clays, and emulsions.
Silts and clays, the target of most mud acid
jobs and 90% of all matrix treatments, can
originate from the mud during drilling and
perforating or from the formation when dislodged during production, in which case
they are termed fines. When a mud acid
system is designed, it is useful to know the
silt and clay composition, whatever its origin, since a wrongly composed acid can
result in precipitates that block flow even
8. Bacteria in the Oil Field: Bad News, Good News,
The Technical Review 37, no. 1 (January 1989): 48-53.
31
more. Emulsions can develop when water

and oil mix, for example when water-base
mud invades oil-bearing formation. Emulsions are highly viscous and are usually
removed using mutual solvents.
The interplay of oil and water in porous
rock provides two remaining types of damage occurring only in the formationwettability change and water block. In their
native state, most rocks are water-wet,
which is good news for oil production. The
water clings to the mineral surfaces leaving
the pore space available for hydrocarbon
production. Oil-base mud can reverse the
situation, rendering the rock surface oil-wet,
pushing the water phase into the pores and
impeding production. A solution is to inject
mutual solvent to remove the oil-wetting
phase and then water-wetting surfactants to
reestablish the water-wet conditions.
Finally, water block occurs when waterbase fluid flushes a hydrocarbon zone so
completely that the relative permeability to
oil is reduced to zerothis can occur without a wettability change. The solution is
again mutual solvents and surfactants, this
time to reduce interfacial tension between
the fluids, and to give the oil some degree
of relative permeability and a chance to
move out.
Design
Assessing the nature of the damage is difficult because direct evidence is frequently
lacking. The engineer must use all available
information: the well history, laboratory test
data, and experience gained in previous
operations in the reservoir. The initial goal,
of course, is selecting the treatment fluid.
Later, the exact pumping schedulevolumes, rates, number of diverter stages
must be worked out.
Since carbonate acidizing with HCl circumvents damage, the main challenge of
fluid selection lies almost entirely with sandstone acidizing where damage must be
removed. Laboratory testing on cores and
the oil can positively ensure that a given
HF-HCl mud acid system will perform as
desiredit is particularly recommended
when working in a new field. These tests
first examine the mineralogy of the rock to
help pick the treating fluid. Then, compatibility tests, conducted between treating fluid
and the oil, make sure that mixing them
produces no emulsion or sludge. Finally, an
acid response curve is obtained by injecting
the treating fluid into a cleaned core plug,
under reservoir conditions of temperature
and pressure, and monitoring the resulting
change in permeability. The acid response
curve indicates how treating fluid affects the

rock matrixthe design engineer strives for
a healthy permeability increase.
Most treatment fluid selection for sandstone acidizing builds on recommendations
established by McLeod in the early 1980s.9
The choice is between different strengths of
the HCl-HF combination and depends on
formation permeability, and clay and silt
content ( below ). For example, higher
strengths are used for high-permeability rock
with low silt and clay contenthigh strength
acid in low-permeability rock can create
precipitation and fines problems. Strengths
are reduced as temperature increases
because the rate of reaction then increases.
McLeods criteria have since been
expanded by Dowell Schlumberger. 10
Recently, this updated set of rules has been
merged with about 100 additional criteria
on the risks associated with pumping complex mixtures of fluids into the matrix, and
incorporated into a computerized expert
system to help stimulation engineers pick
the best treatment system. 11 The system
actually presents several choices of treating
fluid and ranks them according to efficiency.
When the engineer chooses, the generically
defined fluids are mapped on to the catalog
of products offered by the service company.
Acid Guidelines for Sandstones

1983
Condition
Main Acid
HCl solubility (> 20%)
Preflush
Use HCl only
High permeability (>100 md)

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

Low clay (< 10%), high silt (> 10%)
> 200F
32
Oilfield Review
Commentary: Harry McLeod

Formation damage mineralogy
Diagnostics
Well completion data
Harry McLeod,
senior engineering pro-
Damage type
Damage removal
mechanism
fessional in the drilling

division, production
Fluid selection
advisor
technology department,
3% HF,12% HCl
Fluid description
Fluid sequence
Conoco Inc. Houston,

Texas, USA.
Risk analysis
Pumping schedule
advisor
Volumes
Number of diverter stages
Injection rates
Simulator
Preflush 15% HCl, Surf, Cor. Inh.

Main flush 3% HF, 12% HCl, Surf.
Overflush 5% HCl, Surf, Cor. Inh.
Flow profile evolution

Skin evolution
Rate/pressure plots
Product mapping
Production
prediction
Preflush 15% HCl, F78, A260

Main flush RMA, F78, A260
Overflush 5% HCl, F78, A260
Production rates
Payout time
nFive essential steps in designing a matrix acidizing job, as incorporated in the Dowell
Schlumberger ProMAT software package. Detail (right) shows breakdown of fluid selectionwith initial choice of main treating fluid, design of all fluid stages and mapping of
generic fluids to service company products.
Pumping Schedule for a Two-Stage Job

Step
Stage 1
Stage 2
Fluid
Volume
Flow rate
Time
bbl
bbl/min
min
Preflush
HCI 15%
17.3
2.2
7.9
Main fluid
RMA 13/31
68.2
2.2
31.0
Overflush
HCI 4%
33.0
2.4
13.8
Overflush
HCI 4%
20.7
4.8
4.3
Diverter slug
HCI 4%
3.1
4.8
0.6
Preflush
J237A2
17.3
4.8
3.6
Main fluid
HCI 15%
12.6
4.8
2.6
Main fluid
RMA 13/31
55.6
1.1
50.5
Overflush
RMA 13/31
53.7
1.1
48.8
10
Tubing displ.
NH4Cl brine 3%
33.0
1.2
27.5
1. Regular Mud Acid, 13% HCl, 3% HF.
2. Four-micron particulate oil-soluble resin, usable up to 200F.
nA pumping schedule computed with ProMAT software, listing for each stage the fluid
volume, pump rate and pump time. This schedule can be input to a simulator to predict
detailed outcome of the matrix acid job, such as skin improvement.
This fluid selection advisor forms one

module of the ProMAT productive matrix
treatment system that Dowell Schlumberger
recently introduced to improve the sometimes unacceptable results of matrix acidizing (top). The ProMAT system provides computer assistance for every step of well
diagnosis, and the design, execution and
evaluation of matrix acidizing.12 The package begins with the previously described
October 1992
NODAL analysis for diagnosing why a well

is underproducing, then follows with the
expert system for fluid selection.
The third component develops a preliminary pumping schedule to ensure a skin
value of zerohow many stages of treating
fluid, how many diverting stages, how
much to pump in each stage, etc. (above).
The fourth component is a detailed simulation of the acidization process. Given a
pumping schedule, it provides detailed
Matrix acidizing is generally successful in a damaged formation so

long as the well is properly prepared and only clean fluids enter
the perforations during treatment.
In carbonate formations, scale is the most common damage. In sandstone formations, the most
common damage occurs during or just after perforating and during subsequent workovers as a result
of losing contaminated fluids to the formation.
When wells are not properly evaluated with a
combination of NODAL analysis, and either core or
drillstem test data, treatments are often unsuccessful because restrictions other than formation
damage are present, as discussed in this article.
Only in recent years has proper attention been
given to well preparation and on-site supervision.
Improvements in Conoco matrix treatment operations have been obtained by either pickling the
production tubing or avoiding acid contact with the
production string through the use of coiled tubing.
The best results are obtained with effective diverting procedures that ensure acid coverage and
injection into every damaged perforation. In 1985,
Conoco achieved a 95% success ratio in a 37-well
treatment program using a complete quality control program and effective diversion.1
More effective diverter design and improved
models of dissolution and precipitation based on
rock characterization are still needed, especially
in sandstones with less than 50-md permeability
and for downhole temperatures above 200F
[93C].
1. Brannon DH, Netters CK and Grimmer PJ: Matrix Acidizing Design
and Quality-Control Techniques Prove Successful in Main Pass
Area Sandstone, Journal of Petroleum Technology 39 (August
1987): 931-942.
9. McLeod HO: Matrix Acidizing, Journal of Petroleum Technology 36 (December 1984): 2055-2069.
10. Perthuis H and Thomas R: Fluid Selection Guide for
Matrix Treatments, 3rd ed. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA:
Dowell Schlumberger, 1991.
11. Chavanne C and Perthuis H: A Fluid Selection
Expert System for Matrix Treatments, presented at
the Conference on Artificial Intelligence in
Petroleum Exploration and Production, Houston,
Texas, USA, July 22-24,1992.
12. The ProMAT system calls on two software packages:
the MatCADE software for design and postjob evaluation, and the MatTIME package for job execution
and real-time evaluation.
forecasts of injection flow profiles, of the

improvement in skin per zone as the job
proceeds and of the overall rate/pressure
behavior to be expected during the job.
This information either confirms the previously estimated pumping schedule or suggests minor changes to guarantee optimum
job performance. The fifth and final module
uses the results of the simulation to predict
well performance after the operation and
therefore the likely payback, the acid test
for the operator.
At the heart of both the pumping schedule
advisor and simulator are models of how an
acidizing job progresses. In most of the
details, the advisors model is simpler than
the simulators, and even the simulator
model is simple compared with reality.
Acidizing physics and chemistry are highly
complex and provide active research for oil
companies, service companies and universities alike.13 For job design, simple models
have the advantage of requiring few input
parameters but the disadvantage of cutting
too many corners. Complex models may
mimic reality better, but they introduce more

parameters, some of which may be unmeasurable in the field or even in the laboratory.
Whatever their level of sophistication,
acidizing models must deal with four processes simultaneously:
tracking of fluid stages as they are
pumped down the tubing, taking into
account differing hydrostatic and friction
losses
movement of fluids through the porous
formation
dissolution of damage and/or matrix by
acid
accumulation and effect of diverters.
All four phenomena are interdependent.
Diverter placement depends on the injection regime; the injection regime depends
on formation permeability; formation permeability depends on acid dissolution; acid
dissolution depends on acid availability;
acid availability depends on diverter placement; and so on.
The computation proceeds fluid stage by
fluid stage (below ). The time taken for each
Well
Fluids intermixing while progressing
Injection
point
Diverter deposition at perforations
For each block

and each time step...
nSimulating a matrix
acid job, stage by

stage, using a radially
symmetric model of the
formation and analysis
of the main controlling
factors in matrix
acidizing: acid and
diverter flow, formation
dissolution, diverter
deposition, and porosity and permeability
change. This sequence
of computations is
made simultaneously
for all blocks and in
small time steps.
Pressure and flow rate using

Darcy's law
Acid and diverter transportation
Mineral dissolution
Diverter deposition
Porosity/permeability change
Gravity in well
and layers
stage is subdivided into a series of small

time steps and this chain reaction is evaluated for each step. The results after one time
step serve as the input to the next. In addition, for the more sophisticated simulation,
the formation is split into a mosaic of radially symmetric blocks. At each time step,
the evaluation must be performed for all
blocks simultaneously. The simulator provides a detailed prediction of how the acid
job will progress and the expected improvement in skin and productivity (next page,
above ). This helps decide the bottom line,
which is time to payback.
Execution and Evaluation
Sophisticated planning goes only part way

to ensuring the success of a matrix acidizing
operation. Just as important is job execution
and monitoring. In a study of 650 matrix
acidizing jobs conducted worldwide for
AGIP, stimulation expert Giovanni
Paccaloni estimated that 12% were outright
failures, and that 73% of these failures were
due to poor field practice.14 Just 27% of the
failures were caused by incorrect choice of
fluids and additives. Success and failure
were variously defined depending on the
well. Matrix acidizing a previously dry
exploration well was judged a success if the
operation established enough production to
permit a well test and possible evaluation of
the reservoir. The success of a production
well was more closely aligned with achieving a specific skin improvement. Having
identified the likely reason for failure, AGIP
13. University of Texas:
Walsh MP, Lake LW and Schechter RS: A Description of Chemical Precipitation Mechanisms and
Their Role in Formation Damage During Stimulation
by Hydrofluoric Acid, Journal of Petroleum Technology 34 (September 1982): 2097-2112.
Taha R, Hill AD and Sepehrnoori K: Simulation of
Sandstone-Matrix Acidizing in Heterogeneous
Reservoirs, Journal of Petroleum Technology 38
(July 1986): 753-767.
Dowell Schlumberger:
Perthuis H, Touboul E and Piot B: Acid Reactions
and Damage Removal in Sandstones: A Model for
Selecting the Acid Formulation, paper SPE 18469,
presented at the SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, USA, February
8-10, 1989.
Shell:
Davies DR, Faber R, Nitters G and Ruessink BH: A
Novel Procedure to Increase Well Response to
Matrix Acidising Treatments, paper SPE 23621, presented at the Second SPE Latin American Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, March
8-11, 1992.
14. Paccaloni G and Tambini M: Advances in Matrix
Stimulation Technology, paper SPE 20623, presented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
Next time step
34
Oilfield Review
HCl 4%
NH4Cl brine 3%
NH4Cl brine 3%
NH4Cl brine 3%
HCl 4%
HCl 4%
HCl 4%
RMA 12/3
RMA 12/3
HCl 4%
HCl 15%
HCl 15%
RMA 12/3
Diverter slug J237A

Diverter slug J237A
10
Diverter slug J237A

HCl 15%
HCl 4%
RMA 12/3
RMA 12/3
Two-stage
HCl 4%
HCl 15%
Total skin
14
HCl 15%
One-stage
18
Skin per layer
20
Layer 2
RMA 12/3
HCl 15%
30
Diverter slug J237A
10
Layer 1
RMA 12/3
HCl 15%
HCl 4%
RMA 12/3
HCl 15%
Diverter slug J237A
Diverter slug J237A
HCl 4%
RMA 12/3
HCl 15%
Flow rate, bbl/min
nSimulation results
showing the difference between oneand two-stage

matrix acid jobs on
a damaged oil well
known to produce
from two layers.
The one-stage job
(left) fails to remove
damage from layer
2, which is left with
a skin of 10. The
two-stage job
diverts the second
acid stage toward
this layer, bringing
the skin of the
entire well to zero.
Assuming a
$15/barrel price for
oil, the payback
after 30 days is
$330,000 for the
one-stage job and
$520,000 for the
slightly more
expensive twostage job. The properly designed, more
complex operation
appears a reasonable option.
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Volume, bbl
60
120
180
240
300
Volume, bbl
Commentary: Giovanni Paccaloni

After several decades of field practice, countless lab studies and theoretical investigations,
matrix acidizing technology is today one of the most powerful tools available to the oil industry for optimizing production. There is still much room for improvement, however. Reasons are:
Giovanni Paccaloni,
head of production
optimization technologies
department at
AGIP headquarters in
Milan, Italy
October 1992
the relatively low operational cost compared to

the economic benefits
the great complexity of the physicochemistry
phenomena involved, as yet only partially modeled
the low attention paid so far to the evaluation
and to the understanding of actual field acid
response, the evolution of skin with treatment
fluid injected
the lack of exhaustive studies matching lab and
field results
the negligible amount of lab work with radial
cores, which may provide skin evolution data
that linear cores cannot
the low attention paid so far to validating acidizing techniques using pressure build-up tests and
flowmeter surveys
the small degree of integration between different

disciplines lab scientist, field engineer, production/petroleum engineer, and academia
the prevailing attitude to preserve consolidated
rules based more often on the microscale
simulation of reality than on the study of reality,
i.e., actual well response.
All of the above are receiving intense attention at
AGIP. R&D efforts are directed to improving the
success ratio and lowering costs, with the underlying idea that any new technique must be validated
with field results. Much attention is given to the
interdisciplinary approach, to improved training,
and to finalized R&D projects. Three expert systems dealing with matrix acidizing design, formation damage diagnosis and well problem analysis
have been recently released to our operating districts. New matrix acidizing technologies, developed in-house, are currently under field test. The
laboratory study of skin evolution simulating actual
field conditions is one of our major concerns.
35
The key issue in matrix acidizing horizontal wells

Auxiliary
measurements
Fluid density
Flow rate
Treating pressure
Annular pressure
is acid placement, since both damaged and thief

zones can be hundreds of feet long.1 The two
techniques used are bullheading and coiled-tubing placement.
Acidizing horizontal wells by bullheading follows conventional practice, with alternating
Wellsite
stages of acid and diverter. Coiled tubing, on the

other hand, allows accurate placement of diverter
Real-time skin value
into thief zones before acid is pumpedthief zones

Acid
Diverter
Acid
Diverter
Acid
Overflush
Slug diversion
Mud acid
Skin
HCl
Mud acid treatment
can be identified from production logs, Formation

MicroScanner images or mud logs. After the thief
zones have been treated by positioning the coiled
tubing opposite them and injecting diverter, the
coiled tubing is run to total depth and gradually
withdrawn as acid is pumped. Simultaneous withdrawal and injection provides the most even cov-
Time
erage. If inadequate data are available to identify
nMonitoring skin in real time using Dowell Schlumbergers MatTIME wellsite measure-
ment and analysis system. The general principle (top) is to continue pumping acid for
any given stage while skin continues decreasing and change to the next fluid stage only
after skin has levelled off for a while. When diversion is used, skin increases (bottom).
Final effective skin can be estimated by subtracting the net increases due to diversion
from the value indicated at the end of the job.
followed up almost all the failures with a

second acid job. This not only resulted in
improved production, but also confirmed
the failure diagnosis in each case.
Reasons for poor field operation centered
on the technique of bullheading, in which
acid is pumped into the well, pushing dirt
from the tubing and whatever fluids are
below the packer, often mud, directly into
the formation. Bullheading can be avoided
by using coiled tubing to place acid at the
exact depth required, bypassing dirt and fluids already in the well. Paccaloni recommends use of coiled tubing whenever possibleits benefit for acidizing horizontal
wells has been well documented (see Horizontal Wells: Bullheading Versus Coiled
Tubing, next page ).
15. McLeod HO and Coulter AW: The Stimulation
Treatment Pressure Recordan Overlooked Formation Evaluation Tool, Journal of Petroleum Technology 21 (August 1969): 951-960.
16. Paccaloni G: New Method Proves Value of Stimulation Planning, Oil & Gas Journal 77 (November 19,
1979): 155-160.
36
What helped AGIP identify and correct

the failures, though, was reliable real-time
monitoring of each job, particularly the
tracking of skin. If skin improves with time,
the job is presumably going roughly as
planned and is worth continuing. If skin
stops improving or gets worse, then it may
be time to halt operations. The problem initially was the poor quality of field measurements, traditionally simple pressure charts.
Then in 1983, digital field recording of wellhead pressures was introduced. Today, fluid
density, injection flow rates, wellhead and
annulus pressures are recorded and analyzed at the wellsite (above ).
Three methods have been proposed to
monitor skin. In 1969, McLeod and Coulter
suggested analyzing the transients created
before and after treatment fluid injection.15
The analysis was performed after job execution and therefore not intended to be a realtime technique. In 1979, Paccaloni formulated a method that assumes steady-state
flow and ignores the transients, but that provides a continuous estimate of skin in real
time.16 Paccaloni used this method to successfully analyze causes of failure in his survey of AGIP matrix jobs.
(continued on page 39)
thief zones, acid and diverter stages can be alternated as the coiled tubing is withdrawn.
Simulations illustrate the effectiveness of the
coiled-tubing technique over bullheading. The
horizontal well used for the simulations has a
1000-ft producing section drilled in sandstone
with severe bentonite drilling-mud damage along
all of it except for a 200-ft long thief zone.
Bullheading 25 gallons of half-strength mud
acid removes damage in the first 400 ft of the
hole, but fails to make much impact on the section beyond the thief zone (next page,top). The
thief zone initially accepts about one-half of the
treatment fluid, and with time the upper section
becomes a second thief zone. The section beyond
the thief zone takes only 20% of the treatment
fluid, resulting in poor damage removal.
1. For general reading:
Frick TP and Economides MJ: Horizontal Well Damage
Characterization and Removal, paper SPE 21795, presented at the Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach,
California, USA, March 20-22,1991.
Economides MJ and Frick TP: Optimization of Horizontal
Well Matrix Stimulation Treatments, paper SPE 22334,
presented at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum
Engineering, Beijing, China, March 24-27, 1992.
Oilfield Review
Horizontal Wells: Bullheading Versus Coiled Tubing
14
Upper section
400 ft
Thief zone
200 ft
Lower section
400 ft
12
10
Skin
8
14
12
Lower section
10
Skin
-2
Upper section
1.2
Rate, bbl/min
Thief zone
0
-2
Upper section
1.2
1.0
0.8
Rate, bbl/min
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.8
Thief zone
nBullheading with diverter in a series of nine stages. Once the first
diverter stage is pumped, flow into the thief zone is arrested and practically equal flows go into the upper and lower sections. Skin decreases
everywhere.
Lower section
1
Time, hrs
0.6
0.4
Time, hrs
nSimulation of bullheading acid into a horizontal well with a thief zone.

Lower section receives little acid and shows poor skin improvement.
Bullheading acid and diverter in a series of
14
12
nine alternating stages provides a dramatic
Upper section
improvement (above). The flow rate into the thief
10
zone decreases dramatically once the first
Skin
diverter stage is pumped, and practically equal

6
4
flows then go into the lower and upper zones
Lower section
resulting in uniform skin improvement.

By using coiled tubing to inject diverter into the
thief zone before pumping acid, virtually uniform
penetration can be achieved (left). In the simula-
-2
Time, hrs
nUse of coiled tubing to pump diverter into thief zone and then acidizing the well by gradually withdrawing the tubing ensure skin reduction
everywhere in the horizontal section.
tion, both upper and lower damaged zones are

nearly restored to their natural permeability.
Such effective diversion occurs less readily in
carbonates acidized with HCl, where the rapid
reaction tends to counter the effectiveness of
most diversion techniques. However, field exam-
October 1992
37
Before-Acid
Flow Rate
rather than simple bullheading of the acid.

In a 1500-ft long horizontal injector in a Middle
B/D
6000
Depth, ft
ples show the benefits of using coiled tubing,
culated with foamed gel, resulting in a 90%
After-Acid
Flow Rate
0
B/D
decrease in injection rate. Then, 10 gallons-per6000
foot of 15% HCl was injected across two zones
East limestone reservoir, most of the 4000 B/D
near the end of the well while withdrawing the
injected was entering the first 450 ft of the hori-
coiled tubing. More diverting foam was then
zontal trajectory and none was entering beyond
injected. Seven gallons-per-foot of 15% HCl were

200
900 ftsee the production log made before acid
then injected over a long zone at the heel of the
treatment (right). A treatment was then performed
well, again while withdrawing coiled tubing, fol-
by running coiled tubing to the end of the well and
lowed by more diverter and then a repeat injec-
pumping 15% HCl at the rate of 10 gallons per
tion of acid across the same zone.

400
foot as the tubing was withdrawn. When the
The effect of this treatment can be seen by
coiled tubing had been withdrawn to the begin-
comparing pre- and posttreatment temperature
ning of the horizontal section, 15 gallons-per-foot
profiles (below). These were obtained by pumping
additional HCl were bullheaded into the formation.
water into the well for a period and then record-
600
Injection was subsequently 5500 B/D. The post-
ing temperature along the horizontal trajectory. A
treatment production log shows most of the
temperature decrease with depth indicates
increase is entering the first 450 ft of well. But
acceptance of the cool, injected water; no

800
there is some increase between 800 and 900 ft,
decrease indicates that no water was accepted
probably the result of using coiled tubing. There
and that the zone is unlikely to produce. In this
is still no injection beyond 900 ft. Incidentally, no
example, considerable improvement can be seen
diverters were used in the treatment. Experience

in nearby limestone reservoirs using conventional benzoic flake and rock salt diverting agents
did not improve coverage significantly.
A second example comes from a horizontal
well drilled in fractured dolomite in Shell Canada
nPre- and postacid production logs from the first
in both the heel and targeted stimulation areas.
900 ft of a 1500-ft long horizontal injector in a Middle East limestone reservoir. Small improvements
in injection beyond 450 ft are probably due to using
coiled tubing for acid placement. There was no significant injection beyond 900 ft either before or
after treatment.
When the well was put back on a pump, production increased to 300 BLPD, the pumping limit,
and oil production increased from 3 to 48 BOPD.
Ltds Midale field, Saskatchewan, Canada. Initially, this pumping well produced 240 BLPD with
1403
Logs made with coiled tubing suggested that

the well probably intersected the desired fractured dolomite at three separate pointsat the
heel, midpoint and toe of the horizontal trajectory. Otherwise, it strayed into an overlying tight
zone. Production logs, obtained using nitrogen lift
with the coiled tubing, showed that the heel zone
at low pressure (1200 psi) was not producing,
while the toe zone at high pressure (2000 psi)
was producing waterprobably from the fields
True vertical depth, m
water cut rising to near 99%.

1404
p =2000 psi
p =1200 psi
1405
Tight zone
Fractured zone
1406
100
150
200
250
300
Horizontal section, m
Production log
waterdrive scheme. An acid treatment was therefore planned to improve oil production from the
heel and minimize treatment of the water zone.
Pre-acid temperature log
Initially, the entire horizontal section was cir-
Postacid temperature log
Stimulation targets
nPre- and posttemperature profiles, after injecting cool water, confirm matrix acid success using
coiled-tubing deployment in a Shell Canada well in Saskatchewan.
38
Oilfield Review
HSE Developments for Acidizing
2000
Health, safety and environment issues are being
Surface injection rate, B/D
1600
seriously addressed in every corner of exploration and production technology. Laws are tightening and the industrys obligation to public
1200
health and environmental protection cannot relax.

Matrix acidizing is no exception.
The technique obviously cannot dispense with
800
dangerous and toxic acids such as HCl and HF,

but other fluid additives may be rendered much
safer to both the public and the environment. Cur-
400
rent examples are inhibitors used to prevent corrosion of tubulars as acid is pumped downhole,
and solvents used to clean residual oil deposits
and pipe dope from the tubulars.

When acidizing began, it was discovered that
2125
arsenic salts could inhibit corrosion. But arsenic
Simulated
Measured
is highly toxic and its use was discontinued more

than 20 years ago. Less toxic but still harmful
2000
inhibitors were substituted. Recently, Dowell

Bottomhole pressure, psi
Most recently, Laurent Prouvost and

Michael Economides proposed a method
that takes into account the transients and
can be computed in real time using the
Dowell Schlumberger MatTIME job-execution system.17 Their method takes the measured injection flow rate and, using transient
theory, computes what the injection bottomhole pressure would be if skin were fixed
and constantit is generally chosen to be
zero. This is continuously compared with
the actual bottomhole pressure. As the two
pressures converge, so it can be assumed
that the well is cleaning up (right ). Finally,
the difference in pressures is used to calculate skin.
The key to real-time analysis is accurately
knowing the bottomhole pressure. This can
be estimated from wellhead pressure or, if
coiled tubing is used, from surface annulus
pressure. The most reliable method, however, is to measure pressure downhole. This
can now be achieved using a sensor package fixed to the bottom of the coiled tubing.
Evaluation should not stop once the operation is complete. The proof of the pudding
is in the eating, and operators expect to
recoup acidizing cost within ten to twenty
days. From the ensuing production data,
NODAL analysis can reveal the wells new
skin. This can be compared with new predictions obtained by simulating the actual
jobthat is, using flow rates and pressures
measured while pumping the treatment fluidsrather than the planned job. Understanding discrepancies between design and
execution is essential for optimizing future
jobs in the field.
Just about every area of matrix acidizing,
from acid systems to diverters to additives to
computer modeling to environmentally
friendly fluids has been researched and
incorporated into mainstream technique
(see HSE Developments for Acidizing, far
right). The remaining challenge for both
operators and the service industry is gaining
the same level of sophistication in field
practice and real-time monitoring. The tools
for improving field operations now appear
to be in place. There seems no reason why
all matrix acidizing jobs should not be properly designed and executed. The days of the
rule-of-the-thumb are over.HE
Schlumberger introduced the first environmentally friendly inhibitor system, CORBAN 250ECO,
1875
that functions up to 250F [120C].

CORBAN 250ECO is one of several so-called
ECO pumping additives that have reduced toxicity
1750
and increased biodegradability. For example, the

key inhibiting chemical in CORBAN 250ECO is
cinnamaldehyde, a common cinnamon flavoring
1625
additive for gum and candy.

Another ECO product made from natural
1500
sources is the recently introduced PARAN ECO

0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Time, hr
nPressure comparison used to assess skin
in real time, following the method of Prouvost and Economides. Pressure predicted
from measured injection rates, assuming
the well has zero skin, is compared with
measured wellhead pressure. As the pressures converge, damage is being removed.
additive for cleaning oil deposits and pipe dope

solvent from tubulars. This is intended to replace
aromatic and organic halide solvents that are
toxic and that also can damage refinery catalysts
if produced with the oil.
17. Prouvost L and Economides MJ: Real-Time Evaluation of Matrix Acidizing Treatments, Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering 1 (November
1987): 145-154.
October 1992
39
Commentary: Carl Montgomery
Over half the wells ARCO stimulates each year receive matrix treatments.
But this consumes only 17% of the total ARCO stimulation budget.
Because of the relatively low cost of a matrix treatmentARCOs average
is $5,500 in the lower 48 states of the USthere has been very little
incentive to improve matrix treatment technology. While there are more
than six sophisticated design programs for hydraulic fracturing available
for purchase, there is not a single matrix design program for sale.
Candidate well selection is based on production
or water injection history. The design and fluid
selection are based on experiencerules of
thumb. Job quality control and monitoring often
consist of a mechanical pressure gauge and a
barrel counter. The current state of technology
results in a one-in-three failure rate, with failure
defined as the well producing the same or less
than before treatment.
It appears that technology advances are motivated by the job cost rather than the potential productivity benefits. What can be done to improve
this technology without adding a lot of cost to the
treatment?
Candidate Selection and Job Design
We need a generic matrix design program that will
diagnose the degree and type of damage, recommend a fluid type, expected treatment rate and
pressure, pump schedule and predict the economic
impact of the treatment. The program must make
do with the few log data that are generally available for economically marginal wells. A key part of
the diagnosis is predicting type and degree of damage based on the formation mineralogy, formation
fluid composition and injected stimulation fluid
chemistry. Physicochemical models exist, but they
do not take into account reaction kinetics and how
this affects permeability.
Treatment Placement
Techniques for ensuring placement into a particular zone must be advanced. The current diverter
technologies work sporadically and many times do
more harm than good. Recent work has shown that
even when a positive diversion technique such as
ball sealers is used, over one third of the perforations become permanently blocked because the
balls permanently lodge in the perforation. Chemical diverters are many times misused or do not
meet expectationsrock salt is sometimes used
by mistake with HF acid producing plugging precipitates, and so-called oil-soluble resins are usually
only partially soluble in oil. We need positive, eco-
40
Carl Montgomery,
technical coordinator
of well stimulation for
ARCO Oil and Gas
Company in Plano,
Texas, USA.
nomic, nondamaging diversion techniques whose

effectiveness can be documented. Foam and the
use of inflatable packers on coiled tubing are
viable techniques for positive diversion.
On-site Quality Control and Job Profiling
To improve treatment efficiency, we need more
monitoring and controlling of the job on locationa few service companies provide this option
for a nominal fee. This should include testing of the
fluids to be pumpedto ensure concentration,
quality and quantity. To profile job effectiveness,
digitized data are required for real-time, on-site
data interpretation and postjob analysis. This data
should be used to determine the evolution of skin
with time, radius of formation treated and the
height of the treated interval.
Continuous Mixing of Acid
All matrix treatments are currently batch mixed. If
real-time job monitoring becomes widely available, it will give the operator an idea of the most
effective volumes of fluid to pump, when to drop
diverters, what the diverter efficiency is, and the
depth of damage and height of treated interval. To
take advantage of this information, the service
company must have the capability and be ready to
custom blend the required treatment in real time
using continuous mixing. Service companies know
how to continuous mix, but so far have not provided
the technology for matrix treatment.
Oilfield Review
Sand Control: Why and How?
Jon Carlson
Chevron Services Co.
Houston, Texas, USA
Derrel Gurley
Houston, Texas, USA
George King
Amoco Production Co.
Colin Price-Smith
Sand production erodes hardware,
Unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs with

permeability of 0.5 to 8 darcies are most
susceptible to sand production, which may
start during first flow or later when reservoir
pressure has fallen or water breaks through.
Sand production strikes with varying
degrees of severity, not all of which require
action. The rate of sand production may
decline with time at constant production
conditions and is frequently associated with
cleanup after stimulation.
Sometimes, even continuous sand production is tolerated. But this option may
lead to a well becoming seriously damaged,
production being killed or surface equipment being disabled (left ). What constitutes
an acceptable level of sand production
depends on operational constraints like
resistance to erosion, separator capacity,
ease of sand disposal and the capability of
artificial lift equipment to remove sandladen fluid from the well.1
This article reviews the causes of sanding,
and how it can be predicted and controlled.
It will examine the four main methods of
sand control: one that introduces an artificial cement into the formation and three
that use downhole filters in the wellbore.
The article then focuses on gravel packing,
by far the most popular method of completing sand-prone formations.
blocks tubulars, creates downhole

cavities, and must be separated
and disposed of on surface. Completion methods that allow sandprone reservoirs to be exploited
often severely reduce production
efficiency. The challenge is to
complete wells to keep formation
sand in place without unduly
restricting productivity.
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to: Bob

Elder, Chevron UK Ltd., London, England; David Wagner, Chevron Exploration and Production Services Co.,
Houston, Texas, USA; Mike Mayer, Dowell Schlumberger, Montrouge, France; Roger Card, Loren Haugland
and Ian Walton, Dowell Schlumberger, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
In this article, NODAL (production system analysis) and
IMPACT (Integrated Mechanical Properties Analysis &
Characterization of Near Wellbore Heterogeneity) are
marks of Schlumberger; PacCADE, ISOPAC and
PERMPAC are trademarks or service marks of Dowell
Schlumberger.
1. Veeken CAM, Davies DR, Kenter CJ and Kooijman
AP: Sand Production Prediction Review: Developing
an Integrated Approach, paper SPE 22792, presented
at the 66th SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
2. Anderson R, Coates G, Denoo S, Edwards D and
Risnes R: Formation Collapse in a Producing Well,
The Technical Review 34, no. 3 (October 1986): 29-32.
Causes of Sanding
nPerils of sand production. At worst, sand
October 1992
Frank Waters
BP Exploration Inc.
Houston, Texas, USA
production threatens a well. Voids can form

behind the pipe, causing formation subsidence and casing collapse. The well may
also fill with sand and cease flowing. Or
the surface equipment may be catastrophically damaged by erosion or plugging.
Factors controlling the onset of mechanical

rock failure include inherent rock strength,
naturally existing earth stresses and additional stress caused by drilling or production.2 In totally unconsolidated formations,
sand production may be triggered during
the first flow of formation fluid due to drag
from the fluid or gas turbulence. This
detaches sand grains and carries them into
41
Predicting Sanding Potential
Perforation tunnel
Fluid inflow
Formation sand
Fluid inflow
nDoorway to the wellbore. A stable arch is
believed to form around the entrance to a

perforation cavity. This arch remains stable as long as flow rate and drawdown are
constant. If these are altered, the arch collapses and a new one forms once flow stabilizes again.
the perforations. The effect grows with higher

fluid viscosity and flow rate, and with high
pressure differentials during drawdown.3
In better cemented rocks, sanding may be
sparked by incidents in the wells productive life, for example, fluctuations in production rate, onset of water production,
changes in gas/liquid ratio, reduced reservoir pressure or subsidence.4
Fluctuations in the production rate affect
perforation cavity stability and in some
cases hamper the creation and maintenance
of sand arches. An arch is a hemispherical
cap of interlocking sand grainslike the
stones in an arched doorwaythat is stable
at constant drawdown and flow rate, preventing sand movement (above ). Changes
in flow rate or production shut-in may result
in collapse of the arch, causing sand to be
produced until a new arch forms.5
Other causes of sanding include water
influx, which commonly causes sand production by reducing capillary pressure
between sand grains. After water breakthrough, sand particles are dislodged by
flow friction. Additionally, perforating may
reduce permeability around the surface of a
perforation cavity and weaken the formation
(right ). Weakened zones may then become
susceptible to failure at sudden changes in
flow rate.
42
Casing
Debris
Compacted zone
Before cleanup
Cement
The completion engineer needs to know the

conditions under which a well will produce
sand. This is not always a straightforward
task. At its simplest, sand prediction
involves observing the performance of
nearby offset wells.
In exploratory wells, a sand flow test is
often used to assess the formation stability.
A sand flow test involves sand production
being detected and measured on surface
during a drillstem test (DST).6 Quantitative
information may be acquired by gradually
increasing flow rate until sand is produced,
the anticipated flow capacity of the completion is reached or the maximum drawdown
is achieved. A correlation may then be
established between sand production, well
data, and field and operational parameters.
Accurately predicting sand production
potential requires detailed knowledge of the
formations mechanical strength, the in-situ
earth stresses and the way the rock will fail.
Laboratory measurements on recovered
cores may be used to gather rock strength
data. Field techniques like microfracturing
allow measurement of some far-field earth
stresses (see Cracking Rock: Progress in
Fracture Treatment Design, page 4 ). This
information may then be used to predict the
drawdown pressure that will induce sanding.7
Although these techniques provide direct
measurement of critical input data, they are
relatively expensive to acquire and are only
available for discrete depthsin some of the
Cement
Perforation tunnel
Compacted zone
After cleanup
Fluid inflow
nDebris and damage in the perforation
tunnel. Before cleanup, a perforation

tunnel may be filled with pulverized
sand and shaped-charge debris. First
flow may remove this debris, but a
compacted zone can remain around
the surface of the cavity that is weakened and likely to suffer tensile failure.
zones of some of the wells. Downhole wireline log measurements provide continuous
profiles of data. However, no logging tool
yields a direct measurement of rock strength
or in-situ stress. This has given rise to interpretation techniques that combine direct
measurements with sonic and density logs to
derive the elastic properties of rock and predict from these the sanding potential.8
A example is IMPACT Integrated Mechanical Properties Analysis & Characterization
of Near Wellbore Heterogeneity, recently
developed by Schlumberger Well Services,
Houston, Texas, USA. The IMPACT analysis
predicts formation sanding potential using
values for formation strength obtained by
correlating logs and cores, in-situ stress
parameters derived from geologic models
that employ log and microfracture data and
one of two rock failure models.
Despite the fact that cores may be significantly altered during the journey from wellbore to laboratory, rock strength measurements gathered from core tests are crucial to
the IMPACT analysis computation of rock
strength. In a uniaxial compressive test, a
circular cylinder of rock is compressed parallel to its longitudinal axis, and axial and
radial displacements are measured. The
dynamic elastic propertiesin particular
Youngs Modulus and Poissons ratioand
uniaxial compressive strength may then be
computed. Triaxial tests make the same
measurements at different confining pressures and give a more complete picture of
the rocks failure envelope as a function of
confining stress.
Because there is no unifying theory that
relates log measurements to rock strength,
using the laboratory core data, empirical
correlations are derived to obtain the
desired rock strength parameters from logderived elastic properties. The IMPACT software has several empirical correlations to
choose from.
The earths in-situ stresses are due to
many factors including the weight of the
overburden, tectonic forces and pore pressure. While the vertical stresses may be estimated using bulk density logs, horizontal
stresses are more problematic. In IMPACT
processing, accurate estimates of horizontal
stresses are integrated with logs and, using a
geologic model, a continuous profile of
earth stresses is created. Various geologic
models have been developed to cope with
the different environments encountered.
Reservoir pore pressure information is also
needed and this may be estimated using
wireline formation testing tools or DSTs.
Oilfield Review
Finally, rocks either fail in tension when

they are pulled apart or they fail in shear
when they are crushed. IMPACT analysis
enables the interpreter to pick the most
likely failure mechanism. From this, the
program predicts sanding potential.
Completion Options
Once it has been established that at planned

production rates sand is likely to be produced, the next step is to choose a completion strategy to limit sanding. A first option
is to treat the well with tender loving care,
minimizing shocks to the reservoir by
changing drawdown and production rate
slowly and in small increments. Production
rate may be reduced to ensure that drawdown is below the the point at which the
formation grains become detached. More
subtly, selective perforation may avoid
zones where sanding is most likely. However, both options reduce production, which
may adversely affect field economics.9
The most popular options for completing
sand-prone reservoirs physically restrain
sand movement. The four main classes of
completion are resin injection, slotted liners
and prepacked screens, resin-coated gravel
without screens and gravel packing.
Resin Injection: To cement the sand grains
in situ, a resin is injected into the formation,
generally through perforations, and then
flushed with a catalyst. Most commercially
available systems employ phenolic, furan or
epoxy resins. They bind rock particles
together creating a stable matrix of permeable, consolidated grains around the casing.
Clay concentration can hinder the effectiveness of the consolidation process, so a
clay stabilizer is often used as a preflush.
Residual water may also interfere with the
development of consolidation strength and
may necessitate use of increased quantities
of resin.10 The quantity of resin injected is a
compromise between enhancing consolidation strength and reducing permeability. For
example, if an 8-darcy unconsolidated sand
is resin treated to give a compressive
strength of up to 3300 psi, permeability may
be reduced by 25% and productivity cut by
up to 10%.11
Further, sand production will not be prevented if chemical injection is uneven and
some exposed sand is uncoated. Because of
this, the technique tends to be reserved for
short intervals, up to 10 to 15 ft [3 to 4 m].
Complete coverage of larger zones is difficult unless selective placement tools are
used. Although resin consolidation is used
successfully, it accounts for no more than
about 10% of sand-control completions.
October 1992
Slotted Liners and Prepacked Screens: Slotted pipes, screens and prepacked screens
offer the lowest-cost downhole filtering.
Slotted liners have the largest holes, wirewrapped screens have smaller openings,
while screens prepacked with resin-coated
sand offer the finest filtering. Each type can
be run as part of the completion string and
are particularly suited for high-angle wells,
which cannot be easily completed otherwise (see Screening Horizontal Wells,
page 45 ).
Slots are typically sized to cause bridging
of the largest 10% of the formation particles,
filling the annulus between the screen and
casing, or open hole, with formation sand
creating a filter for remaining particles.
However, production can be restricted by
this relatively low-permeability, sandpacked annulus. Also, production of even a
small amount of fines can plug many
screens, particularly prepacked screens,
within a few hours of installation.
Slotted liners and screens are best suited
to formations that are friable rather than
completely unconsolidated. They are mostly
used in California, USA, and some Gulf of
Mexico, USA fields where permeabilities
are greater than 1 darcy. Slotted liners and
prepacked screens are used in only about
5% of sand-control completions.
Resin-Coated Gravel Without Screens:

Resin-coated gravel may be used as a
downhole filter without installing a screen.
The gravel is circulated into position as a
slurry, either inside casing or open hole and
then squeezed to form a plug across the
production zone. Adjacent particles are
bonded together by the resin, strengthening
the pack.
In cased hole, the plug may be completely drilled out to leave gravel-filled perforations. Alternatively, the pack may be
drilled out to the top of the perforations/
open hole so that hydrocarbons are produced through the pack. A narrow hole can
be drilled through the pack to provide a
conduit to reduce drawdown through the
pack. This can be achieved using coiled
tubing if a conventional rig is not available.
Resin-coated gravel has the advantage of
needing no special hardware. But the pack
creates significant additional drawdown that
may affect productivity. If the drillout technique is employed to reduce drawdown, all
perforations must be evenly packed and the
resulting pack may be fragile. Complete
coverage of intervals longer than about 20 ft
[6 m] is difficult to achieve. The technique
represents about 5% of sand-control treatments, mainly concentrated on low-cost
onshore markets.
3. Morita N and Boyd PA: Typical Sand Production

Problems: Case Studies and Strategies for Sand Control, paper SPE 22739, presented at the 66th SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
4. Winchester PH: The Cardinal Rules of Gravel Packing to Avoid Formation Damage, paper SPE 19476,
presented at the SPE Asia-Pacific Conference, Sydney,
Australia, September 13-15, 1989.
5. Bratli R K and Risnes R: Stability and Failure of Sand
Arches, paper SPE 8427, presented at the 54th SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las
Vegas, Nevada, USA, September 23-26, 1979.
Tippie DB and Kohlhaas CA: Variation of Skin Damage with Flow Rate Associated With Sand Flow or Stability in Unconsolidated-Sand Reservoirs, paper SPE
4886, presented at the 44th SPE Annual California
Regional Meeting, San Francisco, California, USA,
April 4-5, 1974.
Morita N, Whitfill DL, Massie I and Knudsen TW:
Realistic Sand-Production Prediction: Numerical
Approach, SPE Production Engineering 4, no. 1
(February 1989): 15-24.
6. Deruyck B, Ehlig-Economides C and Joseph J: Testing
Design and Analysis, Oilfield Review 4, no. 2 (April
1992): 28-45.
7. Morita and Boyd, reference 3.
8. Santarelli FJ, Ouadfel H and Zundel JP: Optimizing
the Completion Procedure to Minimize Sand Production Risk, paper SPE 22797, presented at the 66th
Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
Tixier MP, Loveless GW and Anderson RA: Estimation of Formation Strength From the Mechanical Properties Log, Journal of Petroleum Technology 27
(March 1975): 283-293.
Stein N: Determine Properties of Friable Formation
Sands, World Oil 206, no. 3 (March 1988): 33-37.
9. Massie I, Nygaard O and Morita N: Gullfaks Subsea

Wells: An Operators Implementation of a New Sand
Production Prediction Model, paper SPE 16893,
presented at the 62nd SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, September
27-30, 1987.
Unneland T and Waage RI: Experience and Evaluation of Production Through High-Rate GravelPacked Oil Wells, Gullfaks Field, North Sea, paper
SPE 22795, presented at the 66th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
10. Pelgrom J and Wilson RA: Completion Developments in Unconsolidated Oil-Rim Reservoirs, paper
OSEA 90123, presented at the Eighth Offshore South
East Asia Conference, Singapore, December 4-7,
1990.
11. Davies, DR: Applications of Polymers in Sand Control, paper presented at Use of Polymers in Drilling
and Oilfield Fluids, organized by the Offshore Engineering Group of the Plastics and Rubber Institute,
London, England, December 9, 1991.
43
Designing Gravel Packs
Water breakthrough
Natural
completion
Gravel pack
10
15
Time, yr
nAssessing the viability of a gravel pack.
The oil production rate for natural completionunstimulated and not gravel packed
is compared with that for a gravel pack in
an intermediate-strength rock that is sensitive to water breakthrough.
The technique is also a relatively expensive method of completion. A sophisticated

way of establishing the viability of a gravel
pack is to construct well performance
curves for a range of completion methods
using a reservoir simulator and predictions
of sand movement and how this affects
drawdown (above ).
Although gravel packing has these drawbacks, it is the most effective method of
stopping sand movement and permitting
production, albeit at a reduced rate.
Because of this, gravel packing is the predominant method in use today and warrants
a detailed examination.
Cement
Gravel pack
Screen
44
Formation sand
Cement
Perforated casing
Gravel-packed
annulus
Screen
Formation sand
Gravel-packed perforations
Perforation
hole gravel pack.
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
0
12
16
Gravel/grain-size ratio
nChoosing gravel size range. The ratio of
the effective pack permeability and the

initial pack permeability represents the
effect of the formation sand particles as
they partially plug the gravel pack. When
the gravel size/grain-size ratio reaches
about six, the particles can enter the pack
and seriously diminish pack permeability.
Casing
nAnatomy of a cased-
For a gravel pack to maintain long-term

productivity, the gravel must be clean,
tightly packed and placed with the minimum damage to the formation. These
requirements depend on the correct selection of gravel, carrier fluid and placement
technique. They also rely on scrupulous
cleanliness during placement operations to
prevent the contamination of the gravel
pack by small particles that significantly
reduce pack permeability.
Minimizing the pressure drop in the perforation tunnels is vital to successful gravel
packing and this requires gravel that is as
large as possible. But since the pack must
act as an effective filter, the gravel also has
to be small enough to restrain formation
particles. This depends on the size of the
formation sand, which is usually measured
using sieve analysis.
Effective/initial
pack-permeability ratio
Water breakthrough
Oil production rate
Gravel Packing: Gravel packing has been

used by the oil industry since the 1930s.
Today, it is the most widely employed sand
control measure, accounting for about
three-quarters of treatments.12 A slurry of
accurately sized gravel in a carrier fluid is
pumped into the annular space between a
centralized screen and either perforated
casing or open hole. The gravel also enters
perforations if a cased-hole gravel pack is
being performed. As pumping continues,
carrier fluid leaks off into the formation or
through the screen and back to surface. The
gravel pack creates a granular filter with
very high permeabilityabout 120 darciesbut prevents formation sand entering
the well (below ).
Gravel packs are not without their drawbacks. During installation, carrier fluid is
injected into the formation which may damage the reservoir permeability and restrict
production. The pack then tends to trap the
damage in the perforations, preventing
clean up. Once in place, the pack in perforation tunnels increases drawdown which
may seriously affect productivity.13 Gravel
packs reduce the operating wellbore diameter, usually necessitating artificial lift equipment to be set above the zone. Completing
multiple zones with gravel packs is difficult,
and almost all well repairs involve the
removal of the screen and pack.
Formation samples from cores are passed

through successively smaller sieves to separate particles into a number of size groups
that are then weighed and plotted. If the samples are aggregated, they need to be broken
up before the analysisclay and silt particles
binding the rock together may be removed
by washing with chemicals. The resulting
sand grains may then be dried and sieved.
There are various methods for translating
the formation sand size distribution into a
design size for the gravel. One of the most
widely used methods is based on work carried out by R.J. Saucier that recommends
the median gravel size should be up to six
times the median formation grain size but
no more (above ).14
(continued on page 47)
12. Winchester, reference 4.

13. Welling R and Nyland T: Detailed Testing of Gravelpacked Completions paper OSEA 90121, presented at the Eighth Offshore South East Asia Conference, Singapore, December 4-7, 1990.
14. Saucier RJ: Considerations in Gravel Pack Design,
Journal of Petroleum Technology 26, (February
1974): 205-212.
Screening Horizontal Wells
Studies generally conclude that the most effec-
nHorizontal well com-
tive technique for excluding sand in high-angle
pletion design for the

Alba field.
and horizontal wells is gravel packing.1 Although
430-ft water depth
there have been some notable operational successes, the technical complexities of high-angle
gravel packing and its relatively high cost mean
that alternative techniques are often considered.2
A case in point in the UK North Sea is the Alba
30-in. casing, 800 ft MD/TVD
field which is operated by Chevron UK Ltd. The

350-ft [107-m] thick Eocene sand reservoir is
completely unconsolidated and currently under
development. Most of the fields production wells
20-in. casing, 1200 ft MD/TVD
will have horizontal sections of up to 2600 ft.

When the field comes onstream, each well will
103/4-in. casing, 1500 ft MD/TVD
produce up to 30,000 B/D using electric submersible pumps.

Water breakthrough is expected after only two
months of production and 40% water cut is
133/8-in. casing set between: 2500 ft -4000 ft MD

2500 ft -3500 ft TVD
expected by the end of the first year. Early water

production will exacerbate sand production by
reducing the interstitial tension between sand
grains, making sand control a major factor of the
development plan.
Initial plans called for horizontal cased-hole
95/8-in. casing set 200 ft into horizontal:
gravel packs. However, the company continued to

study alternative solutions and concluded that
Eocene
prepacked screens could successfully keep sand
7000 ft9500 ft MD
6200 ft6400 ft TVD
at bay (right). Prepacked screens cost significantly less than gravel packs and are simpler to
81/2-in. open hole
with prepacked screen
install. What convinced Chevron was not the cost

but the increased internal diameter (ID) afforded
1000 ft2600 ft
by the prepacked screens4.4 in. [11 cm] as

opposed to the 2.9 in. [7.4 cm] of the planned
gravel packs.
Larger ID reduces the pressure drop along the
resin-coated gravel. The screens will be inserted
horizontal length of the well, leading to a better
into open hole, 8 1/2-in. [22-cm] diameter, so
inflow distributionwhen the pressure drop is
there is a likelihood of sand sloughing around the
high, production from the near end of the well-
screens. Chevron tested the effects of sloughing
bore is favored. In the fields conventionally devi-
on permeability around the wellbore. At worst, it
ated wells, where pressure differential will not
reduced permeability from 3 darcies to 1, not
significantly affect inflow performance, Chevron
enough to significantly limit production.
will employ conventional gravel packs.

The prepacked screens will comprise 5-in. pipe
wrapped with two layers of screen with an outside diameter of 6
5/8-in.
[16.8-cm]. Between the
screen will be a 1/2-in. [1.3 -cm] thick pack of
On the downside, the longevity of the screens

is uncertain and there is a lack of zonal isolation
afforded by an openhole completion. In an effort
to combat this, blank sections with internal seals
1. Forrest JK: Horizontal Gravel Packing Studies in a FullScale Model Wellbore, paper SPE 20681, presented at
the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 23-26, 1990.
Sparlin DD and Hagen WH Jr: Gravel Packing Horizontal
and High-Angle Wells, World Oil 213, no. 3 (March
1992): 45-49.
2. Wilson DJ and Barrilleaux MF: Completion Design and
Operational Considerations for Multizone Gravel Packs in
Deep, High-Angle Wells, paper OTC 6751, presented at
the 23rd Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, May 6-9, 1991.
Zaleski TE Jr: Sand-Control Alternatives for Horizontal
Wells, Journal of Petroleum Technology 43 (May 1991):
509-511.
will be deployed every 400 ft [120 m] of screen,

allowing fluids to be spotted, and plugs and
October 1992
straddle packers to be set using coiled tubing.
45
1. Squeeze position
2. Upper circulating position
3. Lower circulating position
4. Reversing position
Service tool
Permanent-retrievable
packer
Ported housing
Sealbore housing
Locating collars
Blank pipe
Primary screen
O ring seal sub
Lower telltale
Sump packer
Seal unit
nThe four positions for gravel packing. In
squeeze position, the service tool seals into

the packer and does not allow circulation.
When slurry is pumped in this mode, all
the carrier fluid leaks off into the formation.
In upper circulating position, slurry is
pumped down the casing-screen annulus
and the carrier fluid can be squeezed
through any part of the screen, into the
washpipe at the bottom of the service tool
and back to surface via the service toolcasing annulus above the packer.
46
In lower circulating position, slurry is

also pumped down the casing-screen
annulus, but returns of carrier fluid have to
pass through the bottom of the pack where
the washpipe is sealed into the lower telltalea sealbore with a short piece of
screen belowlocated below the main
screen. The aim is try to maintain flow in
the casing-screen annulus and ensure that
there is not a void in the gravel in the
annulus below the screen.
However, if the interval being packed is

longer than 25 ft [8 m], backpressure on
the fluid may cause the fluid to bypass the
pack and pass down the well via the
screen/washpipe annulus, which may
encourage bridging off higher up the well.
Reverse circulation involves pumping
fluid through the washpipe, up the screen/
washpipe annulus and back up to surface.
Oilfield Review
Recently, work by B.W. Hainey and J.C.

Troncoso of ARCO points to the possibility
of using larger gravel, offering higher pack
permeability.15 To explain this, Hainey and
Troncoso argue that in some cases formation
sand grains move as larger agglomerates
rather than as individual grains.16
Average grain size is not the only determinant of gravel-pack permeability. The best
gravel-pack sands are round and evenly
sized. The most common way of estimating
roundness and sphericity is by examining
the gravel through a 10- to 20-power microscope and comparing the shapes with a reference chart. Gravel-size distribution can be
monitored by sieve analysis.
The next decision facing the engineer is
whether the completion should be cased or
openhole. Openhole gravel packs have no
perforations and therefore offer the minimum pressure drop across the pack. But
placement may be time-consuming. Care
must be taken to remove the filter cake
deposited on the formation by drilling fluid
and to avoid abrading the formation and
contaminating the gravel. Cased-hole gravel
packs present the additional challenge of
properly packing the perforations.
To check that a well is suitable for casedhole gravel packing, productivity may be
calculated using NODAL production system
analysis. This models the pressure drop as
reservoir fluid flows through the perforations
into the completion hardware to surface.
Pressure drop in perforation tunnels is a
major impediment to production and varies
with tunnel length, perforation area, pack
permeability, viscosity of the produced fluids and reservoir pressure (see Choosing a
Perforation Strategy, page 54). The gravel
size range determines pack permeability
the smaller the grains, the more the pack
restricts formation flowand is fixed by the
size of the formation sand. Formation fluid
viscosity and reservoir pressure are also
fixed. To reduce pressure drop, inflow area
may be raised by increasing perforation
diameter and/or increasing the number of
perforations. If the well is perforated with
tubing-conveyed perforating (TCP), high
shot density guns, gravel packs can nearly
match the inflow performance of openhole
packs for many reservoirs. Pressure drop
may also be reduced by increasing the
diameter of casing in which the gravel pack
is to be placed. If sufficient inflow area cannot be achieved through perforation, openhole completion is required.
October 1992
Once the method of completion is

selected, the hardware may be chosen. At
its simplest, a packer and screen assembly
with a washpipe inside are usually run in
hole with a service tool. However, when
multiple zones are to be completed in
stages, the hardware becomes a complex
series of screens and packers.
The service tool is then used to set the
packer above the zone to be completed.
Thereafter, the positions of the service tool
in the packer and washpipe in the screen
assembly determine the flow direction of
fluids pumped downhole. Sophisticated systems have four positions: squeeze, upper
circulating, lower circulating and reverse
circulating and therefore allow single-trip
treatments (previous page).
In a single-trip gravel-pack treatment, the
perforation guns are fired and lowered into
the rathole. The perforations may be filled
with gravel with the packer in the squeeze
position and the annulus is filled with it in
either the upper or lower circulating positions. Excess gravel is then reversed out.
However, the hardware used in many
gravel-pack operations does not permit single-trip operations. For a cased-hole gravel
pack, the TCP guns must be retrieved and
then the workstring must removed after
gravel packing so that the completion string
may be run. During these trips, the service
tool and the washpipe are withdrawn from
the packer, exposing the relatively high-permeability formation to the hydrostatic pressure of the completion fluid above the
packer. This usually causes fluid to be lost
into the formation.
To reduce losses, particulate loss control
material (LCM) suspended in a viscous fluid
is commonly pumped downhole before
each trip. The LCM plugs the completion
fluids flow path into the formation. After the
trip, the LCM is removed. Common LCMs
include marble chips (calcium carbonate,
removable with acid), oil-soluble resins or
salt pills (see Gravel Packing Forth Field
Exploration Wells, next page ).
Each time LCM is used, there is a danger
of incomplete removal damaging the reservoir. To avoid the need to pump LCM when
the washpipe and workstring are removed
from the packer, a flapper valve can be
employed below the packer. This valve is
capable of accommodating a large-diameter
washpipe to direct flow to the casing-screen
annulus. It closes after the service tool and
washpipe are removed, preventing completion fluid from passing through the pack and
into the permeable formation. When the
completion string is run, the flapper valve is
openedeither mechanically, with wireline
or using pressure.
Wire-wrapped screens are usually used to

retain the gravel. Selection of wire spacing
is not subject to any hard and fast rules, but
a common rule of thumb calls for the slots
to be 75% of the smallest gravel diameter.
Screen diameter depends on the inlet area,
the pack thickness and the ability to fish the
screen out of the hole. This normally leads
to using screens with at least 1-in. [2.5 cm]
annular clearance. Screens are normally
run 5 ft [1.5 m] above and below the producing zone and centralized every 15 ft [5
m] to improve the chances of a consistent
gravel fill.
Transporting gravel into the perforations
and annulus is the next consideration.
Gravel can sometimes bridge off prematurely, leaving voids in the annulus. In vertical wells, incomplete fill may be rectified
when pumping stops and gravel in the
annulus collapses into the voids. This ceases
to be the case in wells deviated more than
50, where voids below a bridge are likely
to remain. Transport is a function of the suspension properties of the fluid and the
energy required to move the slurry. Important factors determining settling are pump
rate, the relative densities of the gravel and
the carrier fluid, gravel diameter and the
apparent viscosity of the fluid when
pumped downhole.17
There is also a relationship between
gravel concentration and carrier fluid viscosity when it comes to turning the corner
in the annulus and entering perforations.
Fluid viscosity must increase if gravel concentration in the slurry increases, otherwise
the gravel will tend to sink to the bottom of
the well. Packing efficiency is also affected
by the rate the carrier fluid leaks off into the
formation. If leakoff is rapid, the gravel is
likely to be carried to the perforation tunnelformation interface and held there as the
fluid leaks off. If leakoff is slow, the gravel
has more time to settle and will not effectively pack the perforations.
15. According to American Petroleum Institute recommended practices (RP 58), the designation 40/60
indicates that not more than 2% of the gravel should
be smaller than the 40-mesh sieve and not more
than 0.1% should be larger than the 20-mesh sieve.
16. Hainey BW and Troncoso JC: Frac-Pack: An Innovative Stimulation and Sand Control Technique,
paper SPE 23777, presented at the SPE International
Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, February 26-27, 1992.
17. Gurley DG and Hudson TE: Factors Affecting
Gravel Placement in Long Deviated Intervals, paper
SPE 19400, presented at the SPE Formation Damage
Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA,
February 22-23, 1990.
47
Gravel Packing Forth Field Exploration Wells
nPrepacking the perfo-
There is no such thing as a typical gravelpack;

each is a complex combination of relatively simple operations. This example is based on a
gravel-packing procedure used on several vertical appraisal wells in the Forth field in the UK
North Sea operated by BP Exploration. Forth, discovered in 1986, has an Eocene reservoir comprising massive, clean sand located at a depth of
about 5500 ft [1675 m]. Permeability is 6 to 12
millidarcies and porosity is 35%.1
Gravel slurry
Cleanliness is fundamental to gravel packing
Loss control material

pill
efficiency. Any contaminants that may plug the

gravel pack and decrease productivity must be
rations. Prepacking the

perforations prevents
loss control material from
entering the perforation
tunnels; this improves
subsequent cleanup and
reduces damage. Tubing-conveyed perforating
guns were dropped,
gravel was bullheaded
into the perforations and
loss control material
spotted across the tunnel entrances.
removed. In preparation for the gravel packing,

the mud pits were cleaned and the mud changed
Prepack gravel
to brine completion fluid. Tubulars were externally shot blasted, internally jetted and steam
cleaned before being run in hole. Because the
dope used to lubricate pipe joints is a serious
contaminant, it was applied sparingly to the pin
Casing
end only.
Formation
Cement for the production casing was dis-
Loss control material
Cement
placed with seawater. The cement scours the casing, but to further clean the wellbore, scrapers
Gun fish
Settled excess gravel
were run and seawater circulated at high pump

rates. Cleanup pills of detergent, scouring pills
with gel spacers and flocculants were also circulated. The well was then displaced to brine. Ini-
perforation was performed to remove debris. The
tial returns of seawater-contaminated brine were
TCP guns were then dropped off. BP decided to
unsaturated brine and the main gravel pack circu-
discarded before the system was closed and sur-
prepack the perforations with gravel prior to run-
lated into place. A second LCM pill was then
face filters employed to reduce the maximum
ning the screen assembly. This strategy was used
spotted across the screen to allow recovery of the
particulate size to less than 2 microns [m].
to limit formation damage and prevent loss con-
service tool without losing completion fluid into
Solids in the brine were monitored to ensure that
trol material from entering the perforation tun-
the formation (next page, left). The final comple-
there were fewer than 10 parts per million.
nels (above).
tion hardware was run and the LCM dissolved.
Perforation was carried out using tubing-con-
Gravel in gelled carrier fluid was circulated
veyed perforating (TCP) guns with an underbal-
into place and then squeezed into the perfora-
ance of about 300 psi. A short flow of 2
ft3/ft
of
tions. This was repeated two or three times to

ensure that all the perforations were packed. An
The LCM pill was dissolved by circulating
1. Gilchrist JM and Gilchrist AL: A Review of Gravel Packing in the Forth Field, paper SPE 23128, presented at the
Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland,
LCM pill of sodium chloride in xanthan gum and a

modified starch was then spotted across the
packed perforations to prevent loss of completion
fluid while the tubing was pulled.
A sump packer was set below the zone to be
completed and above the dropped TCP guns. The
main packer, service tool and screen assembly
were then run and the packer set.
48
Oilfield Review
Washpipe
Blank pipe
Main gravel
pack screen
O ring seal sub

Tell tale screen
Washpipe bottom
Sump packer
sin
an annular gravel pack.
90
les
nDissolving the loss control material and circulating
100
Polymer coating
to resist acid
rtic
Wireline reentry
guide
Low-density
ceramic core
Pa
Logging reference
screen
ISOPAC particle
at
Crossover
les flo
Sliding sleeve closed
Partic
Gravel pack
extension
with sliding sleeve
tling is not a major problem when the densities are matched, the pump rate can be
slowed, improving tightness of the pack and
increasing the time available to pack all the
perforations (below and next page). The
reduced viscosity increases the rate of
leakoff and reduces the potential for formation damage.
ISOPAC particles have been used in over
30 Gulf of Mexico and North Sea jobs since
introduction in 1991. The efficiency with
which perforations have been packed cannot be measured directly. One indirect diagnostic method is based on the average volume of gravel placed per foot of interval
(ft3/ft). Rules of thumb derived from experience consider the placement efficiency of
about 0.25 ft3/ft of conventional gravel as
being satisfactory for intervals of less than
60 ft [18 m]. For longer intervals it is more
difficult to fill all the perforations equally
and, if the interval is 100 ft or so, an average
placement efficiency of only about 0.1 ft3/ft
Packing efficiency, %
Packer
There is no industry consensus on governing choice of fluid viscosity and gravel concentration, but the following three combinations are the most common:
In conventional, circulating gravel packs,
most of the carrier fluid squeezed out of
the slurry is circulated back to surface.
The slurry usually has a low-viscosity carrier fluid of less than 50 centipoise (cp)
and ungelled water is a common carrier.
Gravel concentration can range from 0.25
to 15 lbm/gal depending on the carrier
fluid viscosity and company preference.
The technique is generally employed for
intervals of more than 50 ft [15 m] and
deviated holes up to horizontal. Fluid
leakoff is essential to ensure that perforations are packed, but excessive leakoff
may lead to bridging.
High-density circulating gravel packs are
used for medium to long intervals25 ft
[8 m] to more than 100 ft [30 m]. The
slurry usually has a viscosity of more than
50 cp and a gravel concentration of 7 to
15 lbm/gal.
Squeeze packs, in which all the carrier
fluid leaks off into the formation, are used
for short intervals of less than 25 ft.
The conventional approach to controlling
settlingdecreasing gravel concentration
and increasing carrier-fluid viscosityhas
drawbacks. To place an equivalent quantity
of gravel, more carrier fluid must be lost,
increasing the potential for formation damage. However, increased viscosity slows the
rate of leakoffa 250-cp fluid will leak off
more than six times slower than a 40-cp
fluid.18 Increasing carrier-fluid viscosity may
also increase formation damage.
Sometimes, in an effort to improve placement, carrier-fluid viscosity and gravel concentration are both increased to create a
plug of slurry. But increased slurry viscosity
raises friction pressure and may increase the
possibility of bridging in the annulus.
Another way of reducing settling, helping
gravel to turn the corner and efficiently pack
perforations is to use a gravel and carrier
fluid of closely matched densitiesnot the
case when using conventional gravels or
low-density brines. For this purpose, Dowell
Schlumberger has developed ISOPAC lowdensity, high-strength particles. Because set-
80
70
0.8
1.2
1.8
2.2
2.8
Particle density/carrier fluid density, Dp:Dc

Optimum Dp:Dc ratio using ISOPAC
particles
Standard Dp:Dc ratio using gravel
nEffect of particle-carrier fluid density ratio
on perforation-pack efficiencypercent
volume of perforation filled with gravel.
Efficient packing may be achieved with a
density ratio between 1.05 and 1.8. This
range may be designed using low-density
ISOPAC particles. ISOPAC particles have a
polymer coating with a low-density
ceramic core. Conventional gravel provides a ratio of about 2.4.
18. Hudson TE and Martin JW: Use of Low-Density,

Gravel-Pack Material Improves Placement Efficiency (Part 2), paper SPE 18227, presented at the
63rd SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, October 2-5, 1988.
Bryant D, Hudson T and Hoover S: The Use of
Low-Density Particles for Packing a Highly Deviated Well, paper SPE 20984, presented at Europec
90, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 22-24,
1990.
October 1992
49
Treatment A
Downhole hardware
Treatment B
Sump packer
Crossover
Crossover
Sump packer
Normalized radius
Gravel deposition
1.00
0.50
0
0.50
1.00
8427
8460
8493
8526
8559
8592
8625
8658
8427
8460
8493
8526
8559
8592
Measured depth, ft
Measured depth, ft
Time to pack, min
Time to pack, min
8625
8658
11.67
13.27
14.26
16.61
20.35
23.22
15.26
16.25
17.24
26.09
28.96
31.83
Normalized radius
Final gravel concentration

1.00
0.50
0
0.50
1.00
8427
8460
8493
8526
8559
8592
8625
8658
8427
8460
8493
Measured depth, ft
8526
8559
8592
8625
8658
Measured depth, ft
Gravel concentration, %
0-6
6 -12
12 - 24
24 - 36
36 - 48
Packed
Efficiency, %
Final pack efficiency

1.00
0.50
0
0.50
1.00
8427
Annular Packing
8460
8493
8526
8559
8592
Measured depth, ft
8625
8658
8427
8460
8493
Perforation
packing
8526
8559
8592
8625
8658
Measured depth, ft
nComparing conventional (treatment A) and ISOPAC particle (treatment B) placement. To aid the design of gravel-pack treatments, Dow-
ell Schlumberger has developed PacCADE computer-aided design and evaluation software that can simulate gravel-packing operations. Plots of gravel deposition time to pack, final gravel concentration and final pack efficiencyall versus depthmay be used to
compare proposed gravel-pack treatment designs. In treatment A using conventional gravel, the lowermost perforations have not been
completely packed. In treatment B using lightweight ISOPAC particles in a prepack, good perforation packing efficiency has been
maintained for the whole interval.
50
Oilfield Review
October 1992
PERMPAC fluid in brine environment

+ +
+
+
+
+
Hydrocarbon +
+
core
+ Activator
+
+
+ +
+
- + + +
+
+
+ +
+ + +
+
+ +
+
+ ++
+ +
+
+ - + + +
+
+ +
+ +
- + + + +
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ +
+
+
+ + +
Water
PERMPAC fluid in oil environment

+
+ + ++
+
+
+ ++
+
+
+
+
+
Oil
+
+
+
+
+
+
-+
+
+
Surfactant
Hydrophilic +
Hydrophobic
Volume of fluid through core, ml
has been found to be common using conventional gravel. However, long-interval

gravel packs using ISOPAC particles have
easily exceeded these figures. For example,
in the Norwegian North Sea, a 400 ft [122
m] interval was packed with an efficiency of
0.64 ft3/ft.
While gravel and placement technique
are being selected, the carrier fluid must
also be chosen. In some cases, plain water
is used. In others, additives are used to
increase carrier-fluid viscosity. High-viscosity fluids are commonly water-base,
although oil-base fluids are used for
severely water-sensitive formations. Waterbase fluids are gelled with familiar stimulation chemicals like hydroxyethyl cellulose
(HEC) or xanthan polymer. To reduce the
concentration of nonhydrated polymer that
may damage the formation, fluids gelled
with these polymers are often sheared using
a pump and filtered prior to blending with
the gravel.
Breaker is added to reduce fluid viscosity
once the job is complete and therefore minimize formation damage.19 HEC is normally
the polymer of choice because it has low
residue after breaking and does not build a
filter cake on the formation, minimizing permeability damage.
A radically different type of gelling agent,
developed by Dowell Schlumberger, uses
PERMPAC viscoelastic surfactant-based carrier fluid. This fluid forms rod-shaped
micelles that have a high viscosity in lowconcentration aqueous solution. It shows
high rates of leakoff into the formation, and
has good suspending capabilities compared
to conventional polymers. Unlike HEC,
PERMPAC fluids do not require a breaker
because they are thinned by temperature
and shear, and by crude oil or organic solvents, all of which tend to increase as the
fluid penetrates deeper into the formation
(above, right ).
To improve perforation packing, both
conventional and high-density circulating
gravel packs may be preceded by
prepackswhere the perforations are filled
with gravel either before the screen has
been run in hole or as a separate operation
prior to packing the casing-screen annulus.
Perforations can be prepacked effectively
160
PERMPAC fluid
2.5% by volume
120
80
HEC 40 lbm/1000 gal

40
Xanthan polymer
36 lbm/1000 gal
0
0
10
20
30
40
nLeakoff tests (left) for different carrier

fluids. The leakoff for three fluids
containing respectively the PERMPAC
system, hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC)
and xanthan polymer, in concentrations that give equivalent viscositywere tested on Berea sandstone
cores with nominal air permeabilities
of 300 millidarcies. The PERMPAC
fluid shows an enhanced leakoff,
because contact with oil causes the
fluids micelles to break up (above).
Final leakoff rate becomes constant
as contact with oil is reduced.
Time, min
using either water or gelled fluid provided

fluid loss into the formation is finite.20
Prepacking prior to running the screen, as
outlined in the Forth field example (see
Gravel Packing Forth Field Exploration
Wells, page 48 ), is used to limit the penetration of LCM into the perforation tunnels
during tripping. Determining the prepack
volume is important. Too little gravel will
result in the LCM penetrating unpacked perforations. Too much may necessitate a trip
to clean out the excess in the sump and
covering perforations. Volume depends on a
number of factors, such as the competence
of the formation, the quality of the cement
job, the design and size of the perforation
charges, the extent of cleanup flow after
perforation and the formation permeability.
Prepacking with the screen in place is carried out with the service tool in the squeeze
position before the annular pack is circulated into place. The process takes less time
than the alternative prescreen technique.
The prepack may be pumped as several
stages of gravel slurry interspersed with
stages of acid to clean up damage around
the perforations. The gravel slurry not only
prepacks the perforations but also acts as a
diverter, probably because of pressure that
results when the higher viscosity carrier

fluid leaks off into the formation. Diversion
ensures that more perforations are acidized
and then prepacked than would normally
be the case.21
Sometimes acidization is carried out as a
separate stage, prior to the gravel pack. The
primary aim of this treatment is to increase
the rate at which the carrier fluid will leak
off during the subsequent gravel pack,
although the acid also stimulates the well.
When stimulation is required that matrix
treatments cannot deliver, one alternative is
to create short, wide fractures by carrying
out a tip-screenout fracturing treatment followed by a circulating gravel pack (see
Rewriting the Rules for High-Permeability
Stimulation, page 18).
19. Gulbis J, Hawkins G, King M, Pulsinelli R, Brown E
and Elphick J: Taking the Breaks Off Proppant-Pack
Conductivity, Oilfield Review 3, no. 1 (January
1991): 18-26.
20. Penberthy WL Jr and Echols EE: Gravel Placement
in Wells, paper SPE 22793, presented at the 66th
Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
21. Matherne BB and Hall BE: A Field Evaluation of a
Gravel-Diverted Acid Stimulation Prior to Gravel
Packing, paper SPE 19741, presented at the 64th
San Antonio, Texas, USA, October 8-11, 1989.
51
With the gravel pack in place, there are two

elements to be evaluated: that gravel has
been packed everywhere it was supposed to
go, and that the well is producing hydrocarbons satisfactorily.
Since voids in the pack may lead to early
completion failure, postpack evaluation is
essential to detect incomplete fill and allow
repairs to be undertaken. Prior to placement, gravel may be coated with radioactive isotopes and the pack assessed using
gamma ray logging. However, the coating is
usually inconsistent and may wash off, making quantitative analysis unreliable.
One way to improve the accuracy of such
logs is to use ISOPAC particles that have
been manufactured with isotope encapsulated within each particles resistant shell.
This also offers increased subtlety through
use of multiple isotopes. The perforations
may be prepacked using particles containing scandium followed by particles containing iridium. Packing placement efficiency
can be monitored, using a multiple-isotope,
gamma spectroscopy tracer log (right ).
Alternatively, the effectiveness of fill may
be gauged using nuclear density logging to
estimate the density of material in the annulus. However, not all changes in density are
related to changes in gravel-pack quality
changes in the screen, pipe base, casing,
tubing and formation sand all affect the
reading. A base log run prior to the gravel
packing can iron out these discrepancies
(next page, left). In addition, a reference
screen may be set below the sump packer to
register zero pack response.22
Density measurement is not appropriate
when the completion fluid has a high density (more than 14 lbm/gal) or where lowdensity particles have been employed. In
these cases, neutron activation logging can
22. Gilchrist JM and Gilchrist AL: A Review of Gravel
Packing in the Forth Field, paper SPE 23128, presented at the Offshore Europe Conference,
Aberdeen, Scotland, September 3-6, 1991.
23. Watson JT, Carpenter WW, Carroll JF and Smith BC:
Gravel Pack Field Examples of a New Pulsed Neutron Activation Logging Technique, paper OTC
6464, presented at the 22nd Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, May 710, 1990.
24. Jim Carroll: The Gulf Coast WID Kid, The Technical Review 35, no. 2, (April 1987): 19-26.
25. Deruyck B, Ehlig-Economides C and Joseph J: Testing Design and Analysis, Oilfield Review 4, no. 2
(April 1992): 28-45.
26. Unneland and Waage, reference 9.
52
be used. The neutron activation logging

technique uses a pulsed-neutron logging
tool modified to allow a gamma ray device
to be mounted below it. The pack is bombarded with fast neutrons. Silicon and aluminum in the gravel are activated and
gamma rays are emitted as the elements
return to their natural stable state. The number of gamma rays is proportional to the
amount of silicon and aluminum activated,
and pack quality may be inferred. 23
In openhole packs, a compensated neutron
log can be used to detect hydrogen-rich fluids in the gravel-pack pore space, making it
sensitive to changes in pack porosity. The
tools near and far detectors are used to partly
eliminate the effects of hole conditions. The
curves of the two detectors are scaled to
overlay in areas of low porositygood pack.
Areas of high porositypoor packare indicated by a shift of the curves, especially the
near-detector curve, toward decreasing count

rate (next page, top right ).
Once voids in the pack are identified, a
wireline shaking device attached to the
evaluation tools may be used to break up
bridges and allow the pack to settle. The
shakes create local turbulence in the fluid
which agitates the bridged gravel until it settles into the void.24
The other main strategy for testing gravel
packs centers on assessing performance
using well tests and production logging. In
assessing gravel pack performance a number of diagnostics are available, including
skin factor (which measures formation damage as a function of its permeability) and
multirate flow tests.25
Differentiating between the effects of the
formation and the gravel pack, often
requires a DST prior to packing. With these
data it is possible to identify the pressure
Multiple Isotope Log

Depth, ft
Evaluating the Gravel Pack
Cumulative
Completion schematic
Cumulative Scandium Iridium
5550
5600
5630
nIsotope logging of
a prepack using
ISOPAC particles
containing scandium and iridium.
The initial slurry
with particles containing scandium
tracer packed the
three high-permeability zones. Then a
slurry with particles
incorporating iridium
was pumped that
filled in the zone at
5630 ft and diverted
to the remainder of
the perforated interval. The cumulative
tracksthe superposition of scandium
and iridium indicate 100% perforation packing over
the entire interval.
5650
5700
High-permeability zones
Oilfield Review
Compensated Neutron Log

Far detector
API
75
125
26.667
Near detector
300
CPS
3877 0
Pack %
100
9-5/8 in. casing
Gamma ray
25
4300
7-3/4 in. liner
drop caused by the gravel pack. Production

logging may be used to evaluate each layer
in the formation assessing the flow profile
across the interval.26 Gravel-pack performance versus time is another indication of
performance. Pressure drop across the pack
is one measure. An increase could indicate
that fines like kaolinite have migrated into
the pack and around the gravel or that
unpacked perforations have collapsed.
In the past, the successful accomplishment of a gravel-packing operation has
often been the main criterion used to judge
its success. This judgement often fails to
consider that the treatment may have damaged the well. Today, more attention is
being paid to performance, and completion
engineers are increasingly seeking ways of
stopping formation sand without seriously
restricting productivity.
CF
4400
Top of partial sand pack
2000
CPS
4000
4600
Screen
Depth, ft
4500
Gamma ray before

Gamma ray after
5700
Top of sand
4700
nCompensated neutron log of a gravel pack using near and far detectors. The near
After gravel pack run
detector is affected mostly by the screen and wellbore fluids. The far detector is affected
by the gravel pack, the casing, and in some cases the formation and its fluids.
Base run
Top of screen
5800
nNuclear density logging of a gravel pack.
Running a base log prior to gravel packing

allows the density effects of the bottomhole
assembly to be taken into consideration
and the gravel pack to be evaluated.
October 1992
53
Choosing a Perforation Strategy
Charlie Cosad
Schlumberger Testing Services
Aberdeen, Scotland
The ultimate success of the
wellits productivity and life
expectancyrests on making the
best possible connection between
the wellbore and formation. This
update reports on what we know
today about selecting a perforation strategy best suited to the
reservoir and the completion.
For their help in preparation of this article, thanks to
Larry Behrmann, Klaus Huber, Tom Lebsack and Tony
Vovers, Schlumberger Perforating Center, Rosharon,
Texas, USA; Bill Bell, Huntsville, Texas, USA; Dick Ellis,
Pennzoil, Houston, Texas, USA; George King, Amoco
Research, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA; Randy Saucier, Mandeville, Louisiana, USA; and Stephan Turnipseed, TriTech
Services, Montgomery, Alabama, USA.
In this article, Enerjet, HEGS (High-Efficiency Gun System), HSD (High Shot Density gun system), S.A.F.E.
(Slapper-Actuated Firing Equipment), Selectric, SPAN
(Schlumberger Perforating Analysis), Pivot Gun, IMPACT
(Integrated Mechanical Properties Analysis & Characterization of Near-Wellbore Heterogeneity), MSRT (MultiSensor Recorder/Transmitter) and LINC (Latched Inductive Coupling) are marks of Schlumberger.
1. Gravel is rounded particles of diameter typically
greater than 2 mm [0.8 in.].
54
The fate of a well hinges on years of exploration, months of well planning and weeks
of drilling. But it ultimately depends on performing the optimal completion, which
begins with the millisecond of perforation
(above ). Profitability is strongly influenced
by this critical link between the reservoir
and wellbore.
Perforations form conduits into the reservoir that not only allow hydrocarbon recovery, but influence it. Each of the three main
types of completionsnatural, stimulated
and sand controlhas different perforating
requirements. In the natural completion (in
which perforating is followed directly by
production) many deep shots are most effective. In stimulated completionshydraulic
fracturing and matrix acidizinga small
angle between shots is critical to effectively
create hydraulic fractures and link perforations with new pathways in the reservoir.
And in gravel packing, many large-diameter
perforations effectively filled with gravel1
are used to keep the typically unconsolidated formation from producing sand and
creating damage that would result in large
pressure drops during production.
To meet the broad requirements of perforating, there many perforating guns and gun
conveyance systems. Optimizing perforating
requires selection of hardware best suited to
the job. A good place to start, therefore, is
with the basics of perforating hardware.
The Language of Perforating
There was a time when describing the perforation operation defined the perforator: running through-tubing guns, shooting casing
guns or tubing-conveyed perforating (TCP)
(next page). Not so with the present variety
of completion methods and gun systems.
Oilfield Review
a
a
nUp in smoke. Surface detonation of a
standard 4-in. gun,
staged during the
making of a safety
training video.
Destruction of the
mannequin at left,
positioned about 1
foot [30 cm] from
the end of the gun,
shows the potentially devastating
effect of a surface
detonation, emphasizing that safety
forms the essential
foundation for perforation operations.
a
Casing
Tubing
Packer
Workstring
Packer
Flow entry
ports
Casing
gun
Firing
head
Safety spacer
Throughtubing gun
Guns
Through-casing perforation
Through-tubing perforation
Tubing-conveyed perforation
nThree conveyance methods for perforating guns: through-casing and through-tubing, and tubing-conveyed systems.
The through-tubing gun shown is held against the casing magnetically. The others hang free.
October 1992
55
The two broad categories of guns are

exposed and hollow carrier guns (bottom ).
These can be used in two types of perforating operations: through-tubing, in which
guns are run through a production or test
string into larger diameter casing; and
through-casing, in which guns are larger
diameter and run directly into casing.
Exposed guns are run on wireline and
have individual shaped charges sealed in
capsules and mounted on a strip, in a tube
or along wires. The detonator and detonating cord are exposed to borehole fluids.
These guns are used exclusively through
tubing and leave debris after firing. They
include two designs, expendable, (charges
and mounting assembly become debris) and
semiexpendable (mounting is recovered).
For a given diameter, exposed guns carry a
larger, deeper penetrating charge than a hollow carrier gun. But exposed gun outer
diameter is generally not larger than about
21/2 in. [6 cm], because above this size, the
casing, or hollow carrier design, becomes
more practical, allowing use of larger
charges, optimal angle between
shotscalled phasing 2 and increased
number of shots per linear footcalled shot
density (above, right ).
Hollow carrier guns have shaped charges
positioned inside pressure-tight steel tubes.
This design is available for most tubing and
casing sizes. It is used through tubing when
debris is unacceptable and in hostile conditions that preclude exposed guns. There are
four main types of hollow carrier guns:
Scallop guns, so-called because charges
shoot through dished out areas in the carrier, which is recovered and junked. Scallop guns are wireline-conveyed and shot
2. The nomenclature of phasing may be a source of confusion. A 60 phasing means one shot every 60
azimuthally; a 180 phasing means one shot every
180. Phasing of 0 has all shots in one line, meaning
the angle between shots is actually 360. Speaking of
reduced phasing or reduced phase angle means
the angle between shots is smaller. A 45 phasing is
therefore reduced compared to a 90 phasing.
Damaged zone
Perforation
diameter
Perforation
varies with
shot
density
Phase
angle
Crushed
zone
Perforation
penetration
nMajor geometrical parameters that

determine flow efficiency in a perforated
completion. Four key factors are shot
density, phase angle, perforation penetration into the formation and perforation
diameter. Productivity of a well also
depends on the size of the crushed zone,
whether the perforation extends beyond
the damaged zone and how effectively
the crushed zone and charge debris are
removed from the tunnel.
only through tubing. They are used

mainly in hostile environments or where
debris is unacceptable.
Port plug guns, in which charges shoot
through replaceable plugs in a reusable
carrier. These are wireline conveyed
mainly for deep penetration and where 4
shot-per-foot (spf) density is acceptable.
High shot density guns, which are
designed for each casing size to optimize
shot density, hole size, penetration and
phasing. The majority of sand control
completions use high shot density guns
loaded with charges designed to provide
large entrance holes. All TCP is performed
with high shot density guns.
The HEGS High-Efficiency Gun System,
which is a wireline-conveyed alternative
to port plug guns, with longer carriers that
are faster to load and run. The HEGS system is available in 31/8- in. and 4-in. outer
diameter. It is rated to 210F [99C] and
4000 psi, making it useful in many shallow wells. A big hole charge is available
for the 4-in. size.
To determine the type of perforation and
gun system best suited to the well, a practical first step is to consider the general interaction of the perforation and reservoir. A
second step is to look at how perforation
designs vary for each of the three main
types of completions: natural, stimulated
and sand control.
Application
Gun
System
Exposed
gun
Wireline
through-tubing
Strip
Pivot
Scallop
Port plug
Hollow
carrier gun
Wireline
through- casing
Tubing
conveyed
High
efficiency
High shot
density
nA taxonomy of perforating guns and systems.
56
Oilfield Review
A Perforation Glossary
Detonator: A primary explosive that initiates the

detonating cord. Detonators can be fired electrically
or by impact.
Primer
a
0 sec
Big hole charge: A shaped charge that gives priority to entrance hole over depth of penetration, used
exclusively in sand control completions. A big
hole has an entrance diameter of 0.5 to 1.2 in. [13
to 30 mm], usually about twice that of a deep penetrator charge of similar size. Conventional deep
penetrators have an entrance hole diameter of 0.3
to 0.5 in. [8 to 13 mm].
Booster: A secondary explosive attached to the end
of the detonating cord, used to assure passage of
initiation between the detonator and detonating
cord or between detonating cords.
Carrier: In hollow carrier guns, a steel tube that

carries a loading tube and protects it from the wellbore environment. The loading tube secures and
aligns the detonating cord and shaped charges. The
detonator is housed in a firing head attached to the
carrier.
Completion: Work required to make a well ready to

produce oil or gas. It generally includesnot necessarily in this orderrunning and cementing casing, perforating, stimulating the well, running tubing and installing control and flow valves. In a
permanent completion, the well is not killed after
perforating underbalance and is ready for immediate production. In TCP, the guns remain downhole
after firing. In a temporary completion, the well is
killed after perforating and the workstring retrieved
before installing the permanent completion.
Deep penetrating charge: A charge design that
gives priority to penetration depth instead of
entrance hole diameter.
Detonating cord: A secondary explosive contained

in a protective flexible outer sheath. The detonator
is connected to the detonating cord, which transmits the detonation to each shaped charge. It may
also pass detonation along to another gun via a
booster.
Drillstem test (DST): A temporary completion in

which a downhole shut-in valve, controlled from
surface, is incorporated in the workstring, usually
with a retrievable packer. The well can then be
flowed in a test program, either recording data in
downhole memory or conveying them to surface in
real time to analyze reservoir properties such as
permeability and reservoir boundaries.
Explosive: There are two types used in well perforating, primary and secondary explosives. The main
difference is in their sensitivity. A primary explosive, used in the detonator, detonates from heat
(applied by electric power) or impact (from a drop
bar or a pressure-driven firing pin). A secondary
explosive, used in detonating cord, shaped charges
and boosters, is detonated only by another detonation, from either a primary explosive or electrically
generated shock, such as from the S.A.F.E. system.
Limited entry perforating: Varying the number of
perforations in each layer, depending on layer
thickness and stress state, to achieve the desired
fracture geometry. Fewer perforations in the layer
taking the most fluid restrict flow and divert it into
other layers.
Primer: A small amount of higher sensitivity secondary explosive at the base of the shaped charge,
which ensures correct initiation of the charge by
the detonating cord.
Proppant: Material pumped into a hydraulic fracture to prevent closure and provide a conduit for
production once pressure is released. The most
common proppant is sand. High-strength proppants, like sintered bauxite and zirconium oxide
particles, are used where fracture closure stress
would crush sand.
Shaped charge: A precisely engineered cone of

pressed metal powder, or drawn solid metal, surrounded by a secondary explosive and case, and
initiated by detonating cord. Detonation collapses
the cone into a jet that penetrates the completion
and formation (right ).
Strip gun: An expendable gun in which individual

charges in capsules are secured and aligned along
a strip of metal.
October 1992
Liner
Detonating
cord
Case
Explosive
4 sec
9.4 sec
16.6 sec
nProgression of shaped-charge detonation. The
schematic at 0 sec shows the charge components.

The volume of explosive is greatest at the apex of the
liner and least near its open end. This means that as
the detonation front advances, it activates less explosive, resulting in a lower collapse speed near the
liner base. The subsequent drawings show the case
deforming as the detonation front advances, thrusting the liner into a jet along the shaped-charge axis.
The fully formed jet, at 16.6 sec, is moving at about
21,300 feet/sec [6500 m/sec].
57
Perforation-Reservoir Interactions Getting Started
Flow efficiency of a perforated completion

and stimulation success are determined
mainly by how well the perforation program
takes advantage of the reservoir properties.
The program includes determination of two
main factors:
The proper differential between reservoir
and wellbore pressure (The usual preference is for underbalance, meaning wellbore pressure is less than reservoir
pressure at time of perforating).
Gun selection, which determines penetration tunnel length, shot phasing, shot density and perforation entrance hole diameter. The relative importance of the
different components of shot geometry
varies with the completion type (below ).
The main reservoir property that affects flow
efficiency is permeability anisotropy from
whatever causein sandstone, typically
from alignment of grains related to their
deposition; in carbonates, typically from
fractures or stylolites.3 Shale laminations,
natural fractures and wellbore damage,
which can cause permeability anisotropy,
are considered separately because they are

so common. In most formations, vertical
permeability is lower than horizontal. In all
these cases, productivity is improved by use
of guns with high shot densities.
Natural fractures are common in many
reservoirs and may provide high effective
permeability even when matrix permeability
is low. However, productivity of perforated
completions in fractured reservoirs requires
good hydraulic communication between
the perforations and fracture network. To
maximize the chances of intersecting a fracture, penetration length is the highest priority, with phase angle second. Shot density is
less important because fractures form planes
and increasing density does not increase
contact with a fracture system. In fractured
formations, a popular gun configuration
uses 60 phasing with 5 spf. A Schlumberger version of this gun has a large charge
that penetrates 30 in. [76 cm] into the standard API test target.4
An important geometric consideration of
a perforation is how deeply it penetrates
whether it reaches beyond the zone damaged during drilling or connects with exist-
Completion Type
Perforation
Geometry
Consolidated
Unconsolidated
Natural
Stimulated
Sand Control
Shot
density
1 or 2
Perforation
diameter
3 or 4
Perforation
phasing
3 or 4
Perforation
length
1 or 2
Perforation
Geometry
Anisotropy
Isotropic
Natural Wellbore
Permeability Of Any Laminar Fractures Damage
Cause Shale
Shot density
Perforation
diameter
Perforation
phasing
Perforation
length
58
nRelative importance of four main

geometrical factors
in the three completion types,
where 1 is greatest
and 4 is least. The
optimum perforation design establishes the proper
tradeoff of these
factors. The lower
part of the figure
shows common
considerations for
perforating natural
completions. When
natural fractures
are present, phasing becomes more
important than
density to improve
communication
between fractures
and perforations.
ing fractures. The penetration of various

shaped charges is documented in surface
tests and in tests under stress with API targets.
Penetration in surface tests is different than
under stress in the well.5 Unconfined compressive strength of test targets is a minimum
of 3300 psi, representing only low-strength
reservoir rock (reservoir rock strength ranges
from 0 to 25,000 psi). To estimate depth of
penetration into a rock of arbitrary strength
under a given stress, data measured at
unstressed surface conditions have to be
transformed. Because rock penetration data
exist for only a few combinations of charges,
rock strengths and stresses, a semiempirical
approach is used that combines experimental
data with penetration theory.6
Schlumberger calculates penetration
change caused by formation stress using
experimental data for three generic charge
designs after first calculating the change due
to formation strength at zero stress. These
data provide transforms implemented in the
SPAN Schlumberger Perforating Analysis
program. The SPAN program consists of two
modules: penetration length calculation and
productivity calculation. In the penetration
3. Stylolites, common in carbonates, function like shale
layers in sandstones, inhibiting vertical migration of
hydrocarbons. They are interlocking wave- or toothlike seams that often parallel bedding, and contain
concentrations of insoluble rock constituents, such as
clay and iron oxides. They are thought to be caused
by pressure solution, a process that increases contact
area between grains and reduces pore space.
4. The American Petroleum Institute (API) publishes recommendations for testing shaped charges in a document, API RP-43. Section 1 specifies the length and
entrance hole diameter produced by a gun system
(charges and carrier) in a steel and concrete target.
Section 2 gives this information for single shots into a
stressed Berea sandstone target. As of this writing, the
availability of target material for Section 2 is under
review by the API.
5. Halleck PM, Saucier RJ, Behrmann LA and Ahrens TJ:
Reduction of Jet Perforator Penetration in Rock
Under Stress, paper SPE 18242, presented at the 63rd
Houston, Texas, USA, October 2-5, 1988.
6. Behrmann LA and Halleck PM: Effect of Concrete
and Berea Strengths on Perforator Performance and
Resulting Impact on the New API RP-43, paper SPE
18242, presented at the 63rd SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA,
October 2-5, 1988.
Halleck PM and Behrmann LA: Penetration of
Shaped Charges in Stressed Rock, in Hustrulid WA
and Johnson GA (eds.): Rock Mechanics Contributions and Challenges: Proceedings of the 31st US
Symposium. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A.A.
Balkema (1990): 629-636.
7. Karakas M and Tariq S: Semianalytical Productivity
Models for Perforated Completions, paper SPE
18271, presented at the 63rd SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA,
October 2-5, 1988.
Economides MJ and Nolte KG (eds): Reservoir Stimulation, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA:
Prentice Hall (1989): 1-17.
8. Pucknell JK and Behrmann LA: An Investigation of
the Damaged Zone Created by Perforating, paper
SPE 22811, presented at the 66th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA,
October 6-9, 1991.
a
Reservoir
pressure
0 4 spf
0.8
0.6
Damaged
zone
Wellbore
pressure
0.7
Increasing skin
0.9
Increasing pressure
Productivity ratio
1.0
Wellbore
90 4 spf
12
15
Perforation length, in.
Increasing productivity
a
1.1
Distance from wellbore
nRelationship of perforation phasing and depth to productivity (left) and to wellbore skin (right). Curves
on the left are for undamaged conditions. Damage would reduce their absolute values, but they would
maintain the same position relative to each other. For 0 phasing perforation, skin is higher at the
wellbore because flow follows a less direct path to the perforation than for the 90 phasing case.
Perforations with lower skin distribute the pressure drop over a greater distance from the wellbore,
yielding a higher production rate for a given wellbore pressure. The left figure shows the increase in
productivity with perforation length. In the theoretical case of no damage, a 9-in. [23-cm] perforation
at 0 phasing has the same productivity as a 3-in. [8-cm] perforation of 90 phasing.
October 1992
Open hole
1.0
No crushed zone
k cz /k=1
k dz /k=0.4
0.9
Productivity ratio
module, perforation length and diameter

estimates are calculated under downhole
conditions for any combination of gun,
charge and casing size. It can also calculate
penetration in multiple casing strings. These
parameters are used in the productivity
module to evaluate the anticipated productivity of the perforated completion.
Another influence on flow efficiency is
formation damage, usually considered in
the context of skin, an index of flow efficiency related to properties of the reservoir
and completion. Skin comprises a variety of
influences: flow convergence, wellbore
damage, perforation damage, partial penetration (perforation of less than the total
height of the reservoir) and the angle
between the perforation and bedding plane.
The goal is to design perforations that minimize skin and therefore maximize flow efficiency (top ).
Formation damage is caused by invasion
of mud filtrate and cement fluid loss into the
formation, creating a zone of lower effective
permeability around the wellbore (above,
right ). Extending the perforation beyond the
damaged zone may reduce this skin significantly, enhancing productivity.7 But even for
perforations that do penetrate farther, the
wellbore damage zone reduces the effective
tunnel length.
During perforating, a crushed zone of
reduced permeability is created around the
perforation. In laboratory experiments, the
thickness and permeability damage of the
0.8
Effect for 9-in.

perforation
0.7
0.6
nHow a damaged zone near a perforated

completion affects productivity, for a 9-in.
perforation with 0 phasing and 4 shots
per foot. The influence of lowered
effective permeability in the damaged
zone can be combated by perforations
that extend into the virgin formation. In
this example, there is no crushed zone, so
crushed zone permeability, kcz, equals
virgin formation permeability, k. But
permeability of the damaged zone, kdz, is
60% lower than that of the virgin zone.
0.5
12
15
Damaged zone thickness, in.
1 mm
nPhotomicrographs of rock thin sections, showing the effect of perforation. The left
image is from rock near the perforation tunnel, showing microfracturing. The right thin
section is undamaged rock. (From Pucknell and Behrmann, reference 8.)
crushed zone are influenced by all variables to varying degrees: the type of shaped
charge, formation type and stress, underbalance and cleanup conditions. Pucknell and
Behrmann found that permeability near the
perforation is reduced because microfracturing replaces larger pores with smaller
ones (above). The current rule of thumb is
to assume a crushed zone 1/2 in. [13 mm]
thick with permeability reduced by 80% to

90%. Recent experimental data, however,
cast some doubt on this assumption, with
crushed zone thickness a function of charge
size, pore fluid type, and the preservation of
permeability when perforating underbalance.8
59
The Natural CompletionPerf and

Produce
The natural completion is often defined as

that in which little or no stimulation is
required for production. This approach is
usually chosen for reservoirs that are less
prone to damage, have good transmissibility, and are mechanically stable.
Of primary importance in selecting the
perforating gun are its depth of penetration
and effective shot density (see Natural
Completion, next page). Depth is important
because the deeper the perforation, the
greater the effective wellbore radius; also
flow is less likely to be influenced by formation damaged during drilling. In the context
of well productivity, a deep penetrator
shoots to a depth 1.5 times that of the wellbore damage.
Shot density also ranks high because
more holes mean more places for hydrocarbon to enter the wellbore and a greater likelihood that perforations will intersect productive intervals of an anisotropic reservoir.
After shot density and depth of penetration,
most important is phasing because, when

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

gun systems that allow it. Underbalance
perforating can provide large gains in reservoir productivity. The question is, how
much underbalance is appropriate? Excessive underbalance risks mechanical damage
to the completion or test string by collapsed
casing or a packer that becomes damaged,
stuck or unseated. It can also encourage
migration of fines within the reservoir,
reducing its permeability. Insufficient underbalance, however, doesnt effectively clean
the perforations. Production may therefore
be hindered, mainly by lack of removal of
the crushed zone and, secondarily, by lack
of removal of debris. The crushed zone is
the damaged rock in and around the perforation tunnel; debris is mainly the liner
material of the spent shaped charge, plus
fragments of cement and rock (below ).
The optimal underbalance, which
removes both debris and the crushed zone
and does not damage the formation, accomplishes virtually all cleanup during the portion of initial production that is dominated
Overbalanced perforating before flowing
nThree idealized
conditions in a
perforation tunnel:
overbalance perforation before flowing, overbalance
perforation after
flowing and
underbalance perforation. The top
figure indicates
that without
cleanup, the perforation tunnel is
plugged by
crushed rock and
charge debris. In
the second case,
flow has removed
most charge
debris, but some of
the low-permeability crushed zone
created by the jet
remains. In the
third figure, sufficient underbalance during perforating removed
damageboth
charge debris and
crushed rock.
aa
Phasing from top
45
Damaged
zone
135
Virgin formation
Charge
debris
Cement
Casing
45
90
135 180 225 270 315 360
Overbalanced perforating after flowing
Part of low-permeability
zone still exists
Gun in
casing
Casing unrolled (7 in.)
nThree views of perforating with a

135/45 phased gun: the gun fired in
casing, phasing viewed from the top, and
with the perforated casing unrolled and
laid flat. The 135/45 designation means
the angle between successive shots is
135, resulting in an overall phasing of
45. There is 1 vertical inch [2.5 cm]
between shots, making 12 shots per foot.
In the natural completion, this phasing
provides hydrocarbons with the most
direct path to the wellbore.
60
Crushed (low-permeability)
zone still exists
Perforation partially plugged

with charge debris
Ideal underbalanced perforating
Crushed zone and charge

debris expelled by surge
immediately after perforating
Oilfield Review
Natural Completion
Perforation Technique Selection
Does improvement in well cleanup from underbalance perforating justify added operational complexity?
No
Yes
Perforate underbalance.
Perforate overbalance with high shot density or casing guns.
Is there sufficient rathole for dropping guns,

if subsequent remedial operations are required?
and
Do any of the following apply?
Shot density > 6 shots per foot
Deviation 60
Simultaneous perforation needed for a single,
long zone or multiple zones, exceeding what
can be perforated in one wireline run
Two or fewer zones to be shot selectively
for a multizone test.
Does completion benefit from high shot density or

reduced phase angle?
Yes
Select correct
diameter high shot
density gun
compatible with
downhole
restrictions; select
phasing and shot
density.
No
Casing guns
(wireline conveyed only)
Is the well 4000 psi, < 210F [99C]?
No
Yes
HEGS
Port plug guns
(wireline
conveyed only)
Yes
No
TCP (high shot density guns)
Through-tubing guns
(wireline conveyed)
Production Test
Drillstem test
Select TCP firing

system and
accessories to
integrate with
DST string.
Yes
Is the option of gun retrieval required?

or
Are guns with diameter less than the maximum
allowed by casing size acceptable?
Yes
Stab guns through
permanent packer.
Select guns, firing
system and TCP
hardware.
Will gun or charge debris be a problem

for downhole equipment?
or
Are more than two zones to be
perforated selectively?
Hollow carrier guns
Run guns below

production packer.
Select guns, firing
system and TCP
hardware.
Is deeper penetration important?

or
Is selectivity not required?
Yes
(Tubing conveyed)
Pivot Gun
Do packer/gun assembly weight and well
deviation allow setting by wireline?
Run guns and packer

on wireline.
Exposed guns
(scallop or HSD guns,

depending on tubing
size)
No
Yes
No
(perforates
maximum of 15 feet
[5 m] per run)
No
Conventional
strip guns
No
Run guns and packer
on tubing.
Boxes in red outline denote final decision points.
October 1992
61
by surge of reservoir fluids into the perforations. Cleanup after this point is negligible
because hydrocarbon follows the already
cleaned paths of least resistance. During
production, pressure drop across damaged
areas is insufficient for further cleanup.
Recent experiments have shown that if a
suboptimal underbalance is used, some
cleanup will take place during production,
but productivity never reaches that achieved
with optimal underbalance.9
When well testing is planned, underbalance perforating has become the standard,
particularly when a drillstem test (DST) is
included. Underbalance perforating is ideally suited because a DST includes hardware that allows establishing underbalance
and running high shot density guns. This
setup provides excellent well control and
often saves time because the perforating
guns are run below the test string. Pressure
measurements can be recorded either
downhole or in real time at surface, and are
available for decision-making during the
test. The MSRT MultiSensor Recorder/Transmitter and LINC Latched Inductive Coupling
equipment allow real-time measurement
and surface readout of downhole pressure.
The main advantage of this system is the
added mechanical and safety reliability of
measuring pressure below the DST shut-in
valve. In addition, memorized data can be
read out at surface when LINC equipment is
run, eliminating the need for the cable in
the test string while the well is flowing.
From an operations viewpoint, underbalance perforating by wireline-conveyed guns
causes a surge that lifts cable and guns. The
high flow rate or liquid slugs associated
with this surge can blow the guns and cable
up the well. A common limit on underbalance when perforating via wireline is 700
psi, although this is often higher in tight
reservoirs, which are not capable of delivering a substantial surge.
The choice of underbalance may be
based on data collected since the early
1980s from laboratory and field studies and
from increasing use of underbalance completions (primarily tubing-conveyed perforating).10 More recently, computer programs
have been developed. The IMPACT Integrated Mechanical Properties Analysis &
Characterization of Near-Wellbore Heterogeneity interpretation program computes a
value of safe underbalance based on the
mechanical properties of the formation estimated from sonic and density logs. Local
0 phased
Enerjet
45 phased
Enerjet
60 phased
scallop gun
nA family of through-tubing, wireline-conveyed guns. From left, the 0 phased Enerjet

(a semiexpendable strip gun); the phased Enerjet, with two rows of charges at 90 (an
expendable strip gun); and the 60 phased scallop gun (a retrievable gun). Unlike the
Enerjet, the scallop gun has negligible debris and can be run in hostile environments.
62
Oilfield Review
Run in Hole
Deployed
Deployment
head
9 shots
per foot
90 phasing. A second is the Pivot Gun system, which delivers casing gun performance
with 180 phasing but can be run through
diameters as small as 1.78 in. To do this, the
gun is inserted into the tubing with the
charges aligned along the axis of the gun.
Once in casing, a deployment head is used
to rotate charges 90 to the firing position.
The charges then reach the full 3.79-in.
outer diameter (left ). In case of a misrun,
each pivot charge assembly is designed to
be broken, returning the gun to its original
1.69-in. diameter. This allows retrieval of
the gun with deployed charges. Only the
deployment head is recovered after successful perforation; the carrier and fired charges
become debris that settles to the bottom of
the well.
The Stimulated CompletionGetting More
from Less
1.69 in.
3.79 in.
nThe Pivot Gun system in the run-in and

deployed positions. Charge performance
in surface tests exceeds that of most casing guns25-in. [64-cm] penetration and
0.33-in. [8-mm] entrance hole diameter in
an API RP-43 section 1 target (see footnote
4). Shot density is fixed at 4 shots/ft with
180 phasing. The Pivot Gun system gives
the deepest possible penetration when
perforating through tubing. The main
limitation is the maximum gun length of
10 feet [3 m]. It is rated to 330F [165C]
and 12,000 psi.
experience also helps guide the selection of
optimal underbalance.
Overbalance perforating still has a role,
however. Often significant are its speed for
short intervals and the availability of larger,
high shot density guns compared to those
for through-tubing underbalance perforation. The selection of overbalance versus
underbalance rests on weighting economic
versus production variables.
A long-recognized disadvantage of
through-tubing gun systems is their trade-off
between phasing and depth of penetrationeither 0 phasing with good penetration, or improved phasing with less penetration because of smaller shaped charges
(previous page). A recent innovation that
addresses this problem is the Phased Enerjet
gun, which provides two rows of charges at
October 1992
Stimulated completions fall into two categories, acidizing and hydraulic fracturing
(see Stimulated Completion, next page).
Occasionally, the two are combined in an
acid-frac, which improves productivity by
using acid to etch surfaces of hydraulically
induced fractures, preventing full closure.
Success of stimulation depends largely on
how well the perforation allows delivery of
treatment fluids and frac pressures into the
reservoir. Because these fluids and pressureinduced fractures are intended to move
beyond the perforation, shot phasing, density and hole diameter are of higher priority
than depth of penetration. Underbalance
perforating is often used because cleaner
perforation tunnels give fluids more direct
paths to the reservoir. In some cases, such as
TCP with high shot density guns, underbalance can be increased to where stimulation
is not required to improve productivity.11
However, stimulated reservoirs are usually
of low permeability, greatly limiting the
surge available to clean the perforations.
Further increases in underbalance may
achieve no improvement in cleaning.
When stimulating long intervalsoften
considered more than 40 or 50 feet [12 to
15 m]or multiple zones, the perforation
strategy may change. Delivering treatment
fluid to all perforations may be difficult.
Once fluid enters a zone of higher permeability, a path is established that prevents
stimulation of zones of lower permeability.
Here, limited entry perforating can help. By
making a lower number of perforations
throughout the zone, stimulation can be
applied more uniformly across zones of
varying permeability. High-permeability
zones may take more fluid than low-permeability zones, but because there are fewer
holes, a high enough pressure can be maintained to encourage treatment of low-permeability zones. After stimulation, perforations are often added to optimally produce
the zone.
Uniformity of perforation diameter is
essential to accurately determine the cumulative area of the casing entrance holes.
Knowing this area and pumping pressure
allows calculation of flow rate into the formation, needed to monitor progress of the
stimulation. Uniformity and smoothness of
perforation diameter also provide consistently sized seats for ball sealers. These are
balls of nylon or hard rubber pumped to
temporarily block perforations with high
fluid intake, thereby diverting injection.
Limited entry perforating is usually done
via wireline. The Selectric system is
designed specifically for this application. It
consists of any number of short (1-foot [30cm]) single-shot guns fired selectively from
the bottom up, providing uniform entry
holes. Unlike other systems, in which a misfire terminates the operation, this system has
electrical switches, rather than mechanical
switches, between guns. These allow firing
the next gun even when there is misfire.
Perforation plays a key role in the success
of hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing
has two main steps: fracture creation by
application of pressure, and injection of
fluid carrying proppant, which holds open
the fractures to allow production (see
Cracking Rock: Progress in Fracture Treatment Design, page 4 ). Once the fracture is
created, perforations provide the entrance to
the fracture for the proppant. Perforation
diameter must be sufficient to prevent
bridging, accumulation of proppant that
blocks the entrance hole, preventing further
treatment. To quantify causes of bridging,
Gruesbeck and Collins performed experi9. Berhmann LA, Pucknell JK, Bishop SR and Hsia T-Y:
Measurement of Additional Skin Resulting from
Perforation Damage, paper SPE 22809, presented
at the 66th SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
Hsia T-Y and Behrmann LA: Perforating Skin as a
Function of Rock Permeability and Underbalance,
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
10. Bell WT: Perforating UnderbalanceEvolving Techniques, Journal of Petroleum Technology 36 (October 1984): 1653-1662.
King GE, Anderson A and Bingham M: A Field
Study of Underbalance Pressures Necessary to
Obtain Clean Perforations Using Tubing-Conveyed
Perforating, paper SPE 14321, presented at the 60th
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, September 22-25, 1985.
11. King et al, reference 10.
63
Stimulated Completion
Perforation Technique Selection
It is undetermined whether the well needs stimulation. Could underbalance perforating eliminate the need for stimulation?
or
Stimulation is required. Is any added operational complexity of underbalance perforating justified by the likely
improvement in well cleanup and stimulation?
No
Yes
Perforate overbalance.
Perforate underbalance
(see underbalance perforating
in Natural Completion
flowchart).
Will perforation be performed through workstring?
No
Yes
Through-tubing guns
Will stimulation benefit from high shot density or reduced phase angle?
(wireline conveyed)
No
Yes
Will gun or charge debris be a problem

for downhole equipment?
or
Are more than two zones to be perforated
selectively?
Yes
Select correct
diameter of scallop
or high shot density
gun compatible
with downhole
restrictions; select
phasing and shot
density.
Casing guns
Select correct diameter high shot

density gun compatible with
downhole restrictions; select
phasing and shot density.
(wireline conveyed)
No
Exposed guns
Is well deviation 60 or is the

interval long enough to justify
running on tubing?
Yes
Tubing
conveyed
No
Wireline
conveyed
Are uniform and circular

entrance holes a high priority?
and
Is 12-in. API section 3
penetration acceptable?
Yes
Selectric
system
Is limited entry perforating

required?
Yes
No
Is the well 4000 psi, < 210F [99C]?
Yes
HEGS
No
Port plug guns
No
Port plug guns
64
Oilfield Review
a
ments to determine the minimum allowable
ratio of perforation diameter to proppant
diameter for varying proppant concentrations12 (below ). They found that the perforation must always be at least twice the proppant diameter. When perforation diameter is
at least six times proppant diameter, proppant concentrations can increase without
risk of bridging.
A number of studies have investigated the
relationship between perforation phasing
and the development of hydraulic fractures.
In general, hydraulic fractures propagate
normal to the minimum stress in the portion
of the reservoir undisturbed by the presence
of the wellbore. The general conclusion is
that for an ideal fracture job, perforations
are aligned with the maximum stress direction, so fractures extending from the perforation will lie in the plane that has the least
resistance to opening. Methods for alignment of perforations with hydraulic fractures
are still under investigation. A method in
deviated wells was reported by Pearson and
Maximum particle concentration, vol/vol
0.15
0.27
0.58
Perforation diameter/
average particle diameter
10
No bridging region
Bridging region
Tap water
100-cp HEC solution
10
30
Maximum gravel content, lbm/gal
nImportance of selecting perforation

entrance hole diameter to prevent bridging of proppant in the perforation. To
avoid bridging, the ratio of the perforation diameter to average diameter of the
proppant must lie above the curve.
These are data for tap water and carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC),
a water-based polymer. (After Gruesbeck
and Collins, reference 12.)
colleagues. 13 Alignment of 180 phased

shots with the known fracture plane
reduced perforation friction and significantly improved fracture treatment. Guns
were aligned by mounting them on bearings
that allowed rotation. Gun angle was controlled by a steering tool or, on TCP jobs,
with a weighted half-cylinder that seeks the
low side of the hole. This practice, however,
is not widespread. The most practical way
to approach this today is by perforating with
a phase angle that increases the likelihood
October 1992
Wellbore
Casing
Hydraulic fracture
normal to least
stress
60 phasingnever > 30 from

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

Laboratory experiments by Daneshy show
that fracture initiation pressures are higher
when the fracture and perforation are not
parallel and do not intersect. 14 Later,
Warpinski reported that hydraulic fractures
may not lie in the same plane as the perforation.15 This observation was based on insitu mineback experiments in which a shallow, perforated wellbore was excavated to
see how the fracture propagated. Warpinski
also found that if the perforation and minimum stress planes differ by more than 30,
the fracture may initiate in a plane different
from that of the perforation. This indicates
the phase angle should be 60 or less so the
perforation is always within 30 of a fracture. Minimum phasing of 60 is further supported by recent work of Behrmann and
Elbel, who showed that minimum fracture
initiation pressure and maximum fluid communication between perforations and fractures are achieved by minimizing annular
flowslurry traveling an annular path
around the casing to communicate with the
fracture.16 This occurs when the fracture
plane and perforation lie within 30, preferably 10 (top). Nolte17 previously pointed out
that if the hydraulic fracture does not initiate
at the perforations, annular flow may cause
premature screenout18 and asymmetric penetration of the fracture wings.
12. Gruesbeck C and Collins RE: Particle Transport

Through Perforations, paper SPE 8006, presented at
the 3rd Symposium on Formation Damage Control
of the SPE of AIME, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA,
February 15-16, 1978.
13. Pearson CM, Bond AJ, Eck ME and Schmidt JH:
Results of Stress-Oriented and Aligned Perforating
in Fracturing Deviated Wells, Journal of Petroleum
Technology 44 (January 1992): 10-18.
14. Daneshy AA: Experimental Investigations of
Hydraulic Fracturing Through Perforations, Journal
of Petroleum Technology 25 (October 1973): 12011206.
15. Warpinski NR: Investigation of the Accuracy and
Reliability of In-Situ Stress Measurements Using
Hydraulic Fracturing in Perforated Cased Holes,
ProceedingsSymposium on Rock Mechanics 24
(1983): 773-786.
16. Behrmann LA and Elbel JL: Effect of Perforations on
Fracture Initiation, paper SPE 20661, presented at
the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 23-26, 1990.
17. Nolte KG: Application of Fracture Design Based on
Pressure Analysis, SPE Production Engineering 3
(February 1988): 31-42.
18. Screenout occurs when the fluid carrying proppant is
lost to the rock matrix, interrupting fracture growth.
It results in rapid increase in pumping pressure.
65
The Sand Control CompletionHome of

Big Holes
Remaining casing strength
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
5 shots per foot, 60 phasing

6 spf, 60 phasing
12 spf, 135 phasing
12 spf, 120 phasing
12 spf, 120 phasing
0.5
0.4
0.3
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.0
1.25
1.5
Entrance hole diameter, in.
nRelationship between perforation

entrance hole diameter and phasing on
casing strength. The 135/45 phased HSD
guns achieve the greatest area open to flow
while maintaining maximum casing
strength. Here, casing strength is normalized
to 1, the strength of unperforated casing.
66
Casing
Normalized entrance hole

diameter, %
Sanding is a problem in weak or unconsolidated sandstones. The objective of a sand

control completion is to eliminate sanding
while maintaining a production rate that is
economic, minimizes reservoir damage and
thus maximizes recovery. Near the wellbore, sand movement can reduce permeability locally. Produced sand can erode
downhole and surface equipment and its
removal can be costly. In sufficient quantities, sand can plug the completion or surface facilities.
An objective of perforating in these highly
productive and often unconsolidated sands
is to reduce the near-wellbore pressure gradient during production (see Sand Control
Completion, next page ). There are two
schools of thought on the best way do this.
The established method is to perforate in a
way that takes advantage of protection
afforded by subsequent gravel packing. Theoretical studies show that perforation geometry can sometimes be optimized to obviate
gravel packing.19
For gravel packing, many large-diameter
perforations are preferred to few small
holes. This is because larger holes provide a
larger area open to flow and therefore less
pressure drop on production. To achieve
this, perforators producing large diameter
holes and high shot density are used. A uniform shot distribution further reduces formation stress in addition to preserving casing
strength (below ). Because of the high productivity of the reservoir, deep penetration is
Clearance between gun and casing has a

significant effect on entrance hole size of
big hole charges (see A Perforation Glossary, page 57 ). Adverse effects of standoff
are much less for deep penetrating charges.
Running the largest gun size practical for the
well casing provides entrance holes that
minimize the differential pressure across formation and pack (left ).
45
Gun
positioned
in casing
120
Optimizing Perforation OperationsEnvironment and Safety
80
40
0
0
10
20
30
Standoff as a percent of gun diameter
nCross section of a gun in casing (top) and
the effect of gun/casing standoff on entrance

hole diameter for a bighole charge.
a lower priority. Depth of penetration is sufficient if it assures good communication

with the reservoir.
To create large, clean perforation tunnels,
these wells are typically shot underbalance
with TCP using high shot density guns. The
ideal underbalance will sufficiently clean
perforation tunnels without breaking down
the formation. Sand control could perhaps
be provided by maintaining production
rates low enough to prevent collapse of the
perforation tunnels stable archinterlocking grains, like a keystone arch over a doorway. But such a low production rate is generally uneconomical and arches are
unstable when flow conditions change.
Instead, the arch is usually stabilized by filling the perforation with gravel (see Sand
Control: Why and How? page 41).
In gravel packing, a wire-wrapped screen
or slotted liner is positioned along the perforated interval. A slurry of thickened brine
carrying gravel of closely controlled size is
pumped downhole. The gravel fills the perforation tunnels, creating a pack. One key
to tightly packing the perforations is use of a
fluid that rapidly leaks off into the perforations so the gravel slurry continues flowing
until the perforation is completely full. This
slurry is followed by an additional slurry to
fill the screen-casing annulus with gravel.
The pressure drop during production can
now be distributed across both the nearwellbore area and the gravel pack, which
helps to reduce stress at the formation.
Each perforating system has ratings intended

to ensure safety and minimize operating
risk. Foremost are ratings for maximum and
minimum pressure and time-at-temperaturethe duration of exposure at a given
temperature. The time-temperature rating is
determined by the explosive material,
which degrades at elevated temperatures
and extended exposure times. This degradation results in a loss of sensitivityleading
to a potential misfireand loss of strength
leading to reduced charge performance.
Todays ratings have been established by
both laboratory tests and extensive field
experience.
The most common explosives in current
use are cyclotrimethylene trinitramine, RDX
for short, and cyclotetramethylene tetranitramine, HMX for short. When conveyed
by wireline, RDX is limited to exposure of 1
hour at 330F [166C], or when tubing conveyed, to 100 hours at 200F [93C]. Similarly, HMX survives 1 hour at 400F
[204C], and 100 hours at 300F [149C].
At higher temperatures or longer exposures,
explosives and special elastomers and lubricants are available to perforate reliably at up
to 500F [260C] for wireline-conveyed
applications and up to 460F [238C] for
TCP. Explosives for high temperatures,
called HNS and PYX, are much more expensive and generally stocked only in areas
where high-temperature wells are common.
It is generally recognized that guns have a
maximum pressure rating. Exceeding this
value can cause the gun to collapse or fluid
to enter, possibly splitting the gun and sticking it in the casing if detonation occurs. Less
well-recognized are gun limitations when
perforating in gas. Not all guns that can be
fired in a liquid-filled borehole can tolerate
the higher shock associated with firing in a
gas-filled borehole, which lacks the damping effect of wellbore fluid. Some guns must
Oilfield Review
Sand Control Completion

Big Hole Perforation Technique Selection
Does improvement in well cleanup from underbalance perforating justify added complexity?
No
Yes
Perforate underbalance with high shot density guns

and big hole charges
Perforate overbalance with high shot density guns

and big hole charges
(tubing conveyed).
(tubing conveyed).
Are downhole pressure/flow rate measurements

required?
No
Yes
Drillstem test
Surge Perforation
(Brief, high-intensity flow to
clean perfs; no rate
information collected.)
Select TCP firing

system and accessories
to integrate with DST
string.
Select TCP firing

system and
accessories to provide
perforation surging.
Is a significant amount of sand production expected

regardless of underbalance choice?
Yes
To minimize risk of
sticking guns, select
guns of reduced
diameter.
Select largest high shot density guns

recommended for casing size.
Is well deviation 60 or is the interval long

enough to justify running on tubing?
No
Yes
No
Select largest high shot

density guns
recommended for
casing size.
Select TCP firing system

and accessories.
Wireline-conveyed guns.
be supported by liquid at atmospheric pressure or higher. Special carriers are available

for some guns for use in gas and high-pressure settings.
Although perforating guns are sometimes
exposed to hostile environments, ratings are
rarely specified. The reason is both practical
and technical. A hostile environment com-
October 1992
prises many variableswellbore temperature, pressure, hydrogen sulfide [H2S], treatment acid, carbon dioxide [CO2], duration
of exposure and stress during exposure. Not
all can be quantified to determine if serious
risk exists. Because of the demands of perforating, hardware must be robust and of high
quality steel, well suited to hostile environments. For wireline-conveyed guns, exposure time is minimal. In TCP, where guns
and accessories may be exposed for an
extended period, H2S-resistant accessories

are available.
Each perforating system has a number of
features, often redundant, to ensure safe
19. Santarelli FJ, Ouadfel H and Zundel JP: Optimizing
the Completion Procedure to Minimize Sand Production Risk, paper SPE 22797, presented at the
66th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
67
aa
wellsite operations. Guns themselves contain only secondary explosives (charges,
detonating cord, boosters) and are armed
with the primary explosive (detonator) just
prior to running in the well. This allows for
safe loading and handling. Guns are commonly transported to the wellsite loaded, but
armed only just before being run in the hole.
Firing assemblies are designed to protect the
detonator and position it to initiate the detonating cord. In the event guns are retrieved
unfired, disarming is simple and may be
performed immediately.
In wireline-conveyed perforating, electrical detonators are used, fired by applying
power from surface. The detonators are disabled if fluid floods the gun, preventing
accidental detonation.
Surface equipment is shut off and
grounded prior to running and pulling the
guns, eliminating accidental application of
power. In addition, radio transmission,
welding and cathodic protection systems
are shut down to eliminate possible stray
voltages. This requirement can be a serious
operational limitation, for example, eliminating radio communication to offshore
platforms. To safely overcome this limitation, the S.A.F.E. Slapper Actuated Firing
Equipment system has been developed.20 In
the S.A.F.E. system, a special initiator is used
that fires only from a very high voltage pulse
of short durationa pulse not produced by
routine rig operations. The S.A.F.E. initiator
contains no primary explosive and initiates
only from a specific signal from surface.
TCP has safety features common to many
other techniques. In Schlumberger systems,
firing heads are connected to the top of the
gun string with a blank interval of at least 10
feet [3 m] above the top shot. This allows
arming of guns only after the charges are
below the rig floor, away from personnel.
Firing pins require a minimum of 150 to
300 psi to drive into detonators, ensuring no
possibility of firing until below surface.
The Trigger Charge Firing system allows
running and positioning the TCP guns in the
well with no detonator. The firing head is
subsequently run on wireline. This provides
additional safety while running the guns and
retrieving the firing head prior to pulling
misfired guns.
68
New Completion MethodsAccess for Big

Guns
Wireline latch/
anchor setting
tool
Safety spacer
High shot
density gun
Anchor
gripping
casing
nA variation of the monobore completion,

using a permanent packer. Monobore
completions are most common in the
North Sea and Venezuela.
Efforts of well operators to be more costeffective have led to variations in completion techniques, and concomitant innovations in perforating. A completion that has
gained popularity in the North Sea and
Venezuela is called the monobore. As the
name implies, a monobore completion has
a production string of uniform diameter,
from the reservoir to surface. Casing is set
well above the reservoir, up to half the well
depth. Then, a smaller diameter hole is
drilled to total depth and a long liner run
(Liner is any casing that doesnt reach surface). Once the liner is set, production tubing of the same diameter as the liner is run
and engages a sealing assembly on top of
the liner. The well now has a monobore,
with the liner serving as both casing, providing protection, and as tubing, conveying
production. This approach has the advantage of requiring a less expensive, smaller
hole with lower tubular costs, yet provides a
large-diameter production string. The well is
then perforated with high shot density guns,
either wireline conveyed or anchored in the
liner after running on wireline or tubing.
The guns are then dropped, either automatically upon firing or mechanically via a wireline trip.
Variations of the monobore technique are
already in use. One is to set a permanent
packer on production tubing at the top of
the liner with guns suspended below (left ).
This allows use of the largest possible high
shot density guns, while retaining the economic advantage of the monobore technique. Underbalance is established and a
wireline assembly is then run in and latched
to the guns, which are lowered to target
depth. They are set using an anchor that
hangs them in the casing. The wireline is
then pulled out and the guns fired by pressure actuation. The guns are then released
20. Huber K, Pousset M and White D: New Technology for Saving Lives, Oilfield Review 2, no. 4
(October 1990): 40-52.
Oilfield Review
aaaa
aa
Wireline
Casing collar
locator
Wireline
pressure
setting tool
Permanent
packer
Production
ports
Firing head
High shot
density gun
as in the standard monobore method, either

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

wireline-set packer. This permanent completion allows underbalance perforating
with the largest possible diameter guns in
a permanent completion. Guns are usually dropped after firing.
October 1992
nA dual-string completion that allows

underbalance perforating of both strings.
In this instance, the lower zone is perforated with high shot density guns
stabbed through a packer. The upper
zone is perforated with high shot density
guns suspended below a dual string
packer. These guns are loaded and oriented to perforate the half of the casing
opposite the adjacent long string.
69
F O
Talking Satellites
n oil exploration, knowing where you are plays just as
[490 ft] and Transit provided a fix only about once an hour to
important a role as knowing where the oil is. For posi-
locations near the equator.
tioning and navigation data, explorationists are now
Throughout the transportation industry, research is under-
looking skyward toward an orbiting constellation of satellites
way to harness GPS for managing air traffic, train routing,
to execute seismic surveys, position rigs and locate machinery.
and ship navigation, for dispatching delivery truck fleets and
The Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS), introduced
reducing gridlock. Scientists use GPS to track continental
in 1983 as a tool for enhancing US military capabilities, is a
drift (using sophisticated analysis techniques), predict earth-
satellite-based radio navigation system (next page, top).
quakes and monitor changes in the atmosphere caused by
When fully operational at the end of 1993, GPS will comprise
the greenhouse effect. For oil patch applications, GPS is
24 satellites, including three spares, each orbiting the earth
more accessible, more accurate and less expensive than
every 12 hours at an altitude of 20,200 km [12,500 miles].
conventional land-based radio navigation systems.
Equipped with four atomic clocks, each satellite broadcasts
Accessibility to GPS is worldwide and continuousa
precise time, satellite position and condition data 24 hours a
boon to underdeveloped areas and far offshore regions
day. At least five satellites will be visible to users anywhere
where no other effective system exists. GPS can accommo-
in the world. So far, 18 satellites are in orbit.
date an infinite number of users whereas land-based sys-
The fundamental measurement of GPS is the time

required for a signal to travel from a satellite to the
tems used in marine seismic restrict the number of users.

For oil exploration, most of the cost savings from GPS
receiveroften a portable, hand-held devicewhich gives
stem from its global coverage. Crews on land conducting a
the satellite-receiver distance. Measurements collected
seismic survey or positioning a rig must sight between sur-
simultaneously from four satellites, each distinguished by a
vey points, which often requires massive and costly clearing
unique code, are processed at the receiver to determine in
of vegetation. GPS demands only enough clearance to view
real time the receivers longitude, latitude, altitude and veloc-
the satellites from each survey point. In marine seismic, the
ity, if the receiver is moving. Error is 3 to 100 meters [10 to
operator frequently foots the expense of establishing the
330 feet], depending on the amount of error correction
navigation chain, operating it and demobilizing equipment
applied during processing and type of signal being processed.
when the survey is completed. Even in locations with a land-
GPS is not the first satellite-based system used for navigation. The Transit system, developed by the US Navy in
1960, contained fewer satellites in tighter orbits. To calculate
based system in place, operators rely on time-consuming

and costly licensing negotiations with local authorities.
With conventional radio navigation, operators at the start
a position with Transit, a receiver measured the Doppler
of a survey install job-specific equipment that takes at least a
effect, or frequency shift, detected in signals emitted by a
day to calibrate and verify. GPS receivers, once installed, are
satellite of known trajectory. Errors were as high as 150 m
permanent, and calibration and verification takes minutes.

Conventional radio navigation may also be limited by inter-
70
Oilfield Review
The GPS system, with worldwide, continuous coverage,

provides useful navigation and
positioning data for land and
marine seismic operations.
ference from nearby vessels and aircraft, the shape of the

shoreline, elevation of onshore beacons and vegetation that
deflects signals. These limitations are absent from GPS.
The global accessibility of GPS proves a double-edged
sword to the originator of the system, the US Department of
Defense (DOD). To maintain US military advantage with GPS,
DOD offers two GPS services: precise positioning service
(PPS) and standard positioning service (SPS). PPS signals
can fix a position to within 10 m [33 ft], but are encrypted to
prevent unauthorized access. Only users who satisfy national
security requirements have access to PPS signals. The SPS
DGPS improves the accuracy

of GPS measurements by
comparing the known coordinates of a nearby reference
with its GPS fix.
signals, on the other hand, are available to everyone but

have been degraded through a technique known as selective
availability (SA). With SA activated, accuracy plummets an
order of magnitude to 100 m, unacceptable for surveying
and marine navigation.
SA limitations can be circumvented, however, by a technique called differential GPS or DGPS, first developed in the
late 1980s by scientists studying the shape of the earth
(above, right ). DGPS compares known coordinates of a
October 1992
71
nearby fixed reference receiver with the receivers GPS fix.

The error from the GPS signal can then be transmitted to the
Air gun
array
user, who applies the corrections to the received signals or

computed position. In the North Sea, for example, compaFront
buoy
nies offering DGPS services claim an accuracy of 3 to 5 m

[10 to 16 ft] at distances up to 2000 km [1240 miles] from a
reference station.
Much controversy surrounds the continued US enforcement of SA, especially during peacetime. Civilian users point
to the success of DGPS and the development of a similar
satellite system by the former Soviet Union called GLONASS.
However, SA is here to stay as long as the current GPS system affords the US and its allies a military advantage, even
by forcing hostile nations to develop DGPS capabilities.
From an oil industry perspective, DGPS would be utilized
with or without SA to meet the stringent positioning requirements of seismic surveys (accuracy to within 5 m).
Placement of GPS receivers

on a marine seismic survey
and (inset) a GPS receiver on
a front buoy.
The most elaborate use of GPS in oil exploration is marine

seismic, which marries the new technology with conventional navigation and positioning techniques. During a survey, GPS receivers may be located on the survey vessels, the
front buoys and the tail buoys (right ). Satellite-to-vessel and
satellite-to-buoy ranges are computed to derive the position
of the front and tail buoys relative to the vessel. Acoustic
positioning devices called transponders are located on the
Tail buoy
survey vessels, source arrays, streamers and tail buoys. (Transponders are still needed because GPS receivers do not oper-
GPS receiver
Magnetic compass
ate underwater.) The position of the transponder relative to a

survey vessel or buoy is determined by measuring the time
quently, DGPS will not replace, but rather integrate with,
it takes acoustic pulses emitted from one transponder to
existing systems. Use of DGPS as a primary positioning sys-
reach another. In addition, laser ranges measure the distance
tem has grown in the North Sea because its greater reliability
between the vessel and source arrays, and compasses
minimizes the risk of operational failure. Improving software
spaced along each cable monitor the streamer shape.
that can integrate DGPS data with existing measurements
Typically, a backup positioning system is desired in a

marine seismic survey in case the primary one fails. Conse-
will secure the cost savings promised by the new technology.

TAL
Acknowledgements and Further Reading
For help in preparing this focus, thanks to Erik Vigen,

GECO-PRAKLA R&E, Sandvika, Norway and Bruce
King, GECO-PRAKLA, Stavanger, Norway.
For further reading:
Jensen MHB: Quality Control for Differential GPS in
Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration, GPS World 3, no.
8 (September 1992): 36-48.
72
Oilfield Review

p3d Model Description

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

p3d Model Description

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

COMPLETION/STIMULATION

Cracking Rock: Progress in Fracture Treatment Design

In the 1950s, hydraulic fracturing

For their help with this article, thanks to Larry Behrmann,

The idea of hydraulically creating cracks in

The method took off. By 1955, treatments

4. Warpinski NR: Invited Paper: Rock Mechanics Issues

the faces of the fracture and prevent them

Pressure exerted by the pad initiates and

Job Description Information

nA typical pumping schedule for a

is the largest stage, accounting for

slurry concentration that starts at the

25% slurry volume pumped

50% slurry volume pumped

75% slurry volume pumped

5. Gulbis J, Hawkins G, King M, Pulsinelli R, Brown E

nAn investigational proppant transport

To Frac or Not to Frac?

Fracture Geometry Modeling

Determine if the well is providing the maximum benefit, indicated

Determine benefit using NODAL

Maximum benefit achieved for

Maximum benefit achieved after

7. Hubbert MK and Willis DG: Mechanics of Hydraulic

Clifton RJ: Three-Dimensional Fracture-Propagation

The need to understand hydraulic fracturing

limited use because of lengthy computation

The emergence of 3D models has not

Elliptical cross section

Rectangular cross section

Appropriate when fracture

For example, proppant concentrations may

2D versus P3D/3D Fracture Models

15. Daneshy AA, Slusher GL, Chisholm PT and Magee

Minimum horizontal stress, psi

nStress profile measured by

Bottomhole pressure, psi

data. They are used to understand fracture

and P3D modeling, it doubles or triples

pumping schedule.18 (below ). Multilayer

at a single time or for a limited number of

The Perf and the Frac: Whats the Link?

The estimate becomes tenuous in silty shale,

Treatment cost, $ 106

Fluid volume, gal

Fracture conductivity, md-ft

Proppant weight, lb 106

Comparison of Fracture-Design Calculations for Different Fracturing Models

Viscosity after pad, cp

Created fracture length, ft

Total amount of sand, lbm

Effective fracture length, ft

Created fracture width, in.

Effective fracture width, in.

Effective fracture height, ft

Average fracture conductivity, darcy-ft

Adapted from Veatch RW Jr, et al, reference 3.

triaxial stress cell. 20 They made several

pad and slurry flow around the annulus to

sandstone blocks, found that slow pumping

Today, the center of controversy in fracturing is a fundamental concept called fracture

Another school of thought, led by investigators at Shell, mainly Jacob Shlyapobersky,