SPE-184813-MS

The Importance of Being Well Connected - High Rate Fracs in Horizontals

A. Casero, A. Nicolaysen, and M. Rylance, BP; J. Clifton and B. Fears, TTS

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24-26 January
2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
In the majority of fractured oil and gas wells, conventional perforating is the typical approach of choice
to provide the primary connectivity of fractures to the wellbore, and in horizontal wells the very discrete
nature of this connection assumes a significantly higher importance. In multi-fractured horizontal wells, this
connection drives the ability to efficiently place the fracture treatments during pumping and the efficiency
with which the fracture can subsequently be produced. Consequently, selection of the most appropriate
connection technique can be absolutely key to many aspects of a successful implementation of a fracturing
campaign.
The use of shaped-charge perforating is quite commonplace and predominantly considered as best
practice for the majority of scenarios, in order to establish fracture/wellbore connectivity. However, there
are certain situations where such approaches may not provide an efficient solution. This is particularly true
in those horizontal wells drilled and completed in complex stress regimes, also in reasonable permeability
reservoirs, that have multiphase flow potential or with just a few transverse fractures that are expected to
produce at moderate to high production rates from each frac. In these particular cases, a complex connection
resulting from perforating can often be detrimental to fracture width creation, making proppant placement
challenging and reducing effective fracture conductivity. Additionally, convergent and multi-phase flow
behaviour can create extremely high pressure drops in the near wellbore area subsequently impeding the
productivity.
While open-hole completions can be one of the methods to deal with this situation, by effectively
eliminating the "problem" at source, this is typically delivered at the expense of loss of control on the
point of fracture and also with a statistical isolation failure rate. When this is implemented in multistage/
multi-cluster frac environments (effectively hundreds of fracs) such statistical failure is an acceptable risk.
However, when a single-well frac count is just 3, 4 or 5 per well, any statistical failure can be materially
impactful on the well productivity. In those cases when open-hole is not an attractive approach then cased-
cemented is preferred, and the application of abrasive jetting can provide an effective alternative to the use
of shaped-charges.
This paper will fully describe a suite of tests performed with different shaped-charges as well as abrasive
jetting perforators, static holes and dynamic slotting for the multi-fractured horizontal wells in the Khazzan
tight-gas condensate field in the Sultanate of Oman. The paper will also include a comprehensive review of
2 SPE-184813-MS

multiple injection tests that were performed in both Khazzan vertical and horizontal wells (Al Shueili et al.,
2016), through both shaped-charge and abrasive jetted connections. This review will offer observation on
maximising the effectiveness of the pre-frac wellbore connection technique in challenging environments.

Introduction
High Well Head Treating Pressures (WHTP) that occurred during the fracture stimulation of the Middle
Barik formation, in the first two horizontal wells (Well H1 and Well H2), was found to be pushing the original
well design to the limit. The well design was subsequently adjusted and upgraded in the third horizontal well
(Well H3) and this allowed the successful placement of three hydraulic fracture treatments (Nicolaysen et
al., 2016). The next two cemented horizontal wells (Well H4 and Well H5) demonstrated that this upgraded
completion design, together with optimised fracture designs and in combination with good quality rock; was
critical in terms of increasing the chances to successfully breakdown the formation and subsequently place
fracture treatments. Nevertheless, on a number of occasions, formation breakdown proved to be difficult
if not impossible to achieve and indicated that fracture-wellbore communication would be a key area of
consideration going forward.
These occasional difficulties in initiating and placing transverse hydraulic fracture treatments, in
horizontal wells in tight gas sandstones, are not uncommon and can be caused by a variety of natural and
operational factors. Such influences included the in-situ stress-state, the perforation strategy and approach,
the wellbore cleanliness, design and maximum WHTP, the hole shape and cement quality, etc. The excess
pressure, that is experienced, is typically referred to as Near Wellbore Friction (NWBF), because it is a
combination of both perforation and tortuosity friction. NWBF can directly result in a number of undesirable
outcomes, such as a requirement for additional horsepower, early job termination (due to screen-out) and
failing to achieve optimal Tip Screen-Out (TSO) pressure build. Achieving the TSO technique (Martins
et al., 1988) and being able to build substantial TSO net pressure, had been shown previously to be a key
aspect to sustained and efficient delivery in the Khazzan vertical wells (Rylance et al., 2011). Therefore
both understanding and addressing the source and magnitude of the NWBF effect was seen as being critical
in order to be able to implement horizontal wells in the Khazzan field effectively.
This paper describes the in depth review that was performed to determine the contributing factors to
the NWBF effect, and provide a suite of observations ways to reduce such NWBF. Achieving a reduced
NWBF would contribute to an improved injectivity, deliver an improved ability to pump the treatments to
completion, as well as result in an increased well performance such as a higher initial production rate and
potentially a higher Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR). One significant aspect of NWBF, as an issue, is
that it is directly measureable and changes to its magnitude are easily/readily assessed.
A critical review of perforating operations is a continuous process and the picture builds over time,
however it was already clear from the initial data that was available that it would be difficult to establish a
consistent and coherent correlation between the perforation technique and the ability to breakdown or place
the frac. This is because there are numerous operational factors associated with this relationship, not least of
which is this small initial dataset during the early phases of development. The operational factors that can
affect any attempts at interpretation are numerous, but some of the more impactful include the following:
(a) wellbore cleanliness (particularly the liner/lower-completion), (b) wellbore trajectory (landing-point,
azimuth and deviation), (c) wellbore pressure limitations (Tubing Stress Analysis (TSA)) and ultimately
(d) wellbore connection location (all external aspects of perforating such as rocky-type, cement quality,
lithological variation, etc.).
In order to progress such a review, it was agreed that there would be three main considerations that would
need to be progressed, which were outlined as follows:

Gather the applicable pumping performance data and implement a detailed and critical review of
all the previous perforating and abrasive-jetting connection operations that have been implemented
SPE-184813-MS 3

in the Khazzan Barik appraisal and development wells to date, do this for both the vertical and
horizontal wells.
Identify any potential gaps in either the perforating and/or abrasive-jetting technologies that
have been applied to date, investigate appropriate solutions and perform shaped-charge tests and
abrasive-jetting yard- trials of these additional options to provide a more complete picture of
potential solutions.
Taking into account the back-analysis, of previous experiences, calibration to the shaped- charge
and abrasive-jetting yard-testing as well as the measurement of the potential new approaches;
outline and provide a field-trial schedule that would demonstrate learning and continuous
improvement.
With this as the planned approach, a project plan and schedule was created, resource was assigned and
the work was executed. The remainder of this paper will report on the data and conclusions from the review,
the shaped-charge and yard-testing performed in support and the observations related to a field deployment
programme going forward.

Connection Experience from Appraisal

During the appraisal phase a number of vertical wells were drilled and detailed pumping/pressure data was
available from all of these wells, additionally two of the early development wells were horizontal and these
wells also provided extensive data for analysis. The initial data was reviewed and processed and formed
the basis of the initial phase of this investigation.
In order to have a common understanding of detailed pressure losses, it is important that the language and
definitions that are applied are both agreed and well understood. Therefore the following sections outline
the manner in which various pressure losses are assessed and allocated.

Pressure Loss Definitions

In order to begin assessing pressure loss accurately, we should understand the total system pressure loss from
the WHTP and the Instantaneous Shut In Pressure (ISIP). Total system pressure loss is typically defined in
the following way, or some similar variant:
(1)
Where, WHTP is the pressure at surface while pumping just before shut-in (psi),
ISIP is the Instantaneous Shut In Pressure (ISIP) (psi),
ptotal friction is the frictional pressure loss from the perfs to the wellhead (psi),
ptubing friction is the frictional pressure loss in the tubing (psi),
pperf friction is the pressure loss across the effective perforations (psi),
ptortuosity is the pressure loss in the tortuous path between perf and frac (psi).
Pressure losses can be categorized into two distinct types, and these are defined as both distributed and
localised pressure losses, described as follows:
Distributed pressure losses are associated with surface frictional forces between the fluid and its
container(s) as well as the interactions between the fluid particles themselves. Distributed pressure losses, or
frictional pressures, are directly associated with the fluid viscosity behaviour and the fluid flow regime (e.g.
laminar, transitional or turbulent). The most common distributed pressure loss, in a wellbore completion,
is the tubular friction.
Localised pressure drops are directly associated with changes in the total energy distribution (state),
as described by Bernoulli's principle (Bernoulli, 1738), and in practice with changes in a fluid's velocity.
Velocity changes occur when the flow area varies instantaneously, or over a very short and discrete distance.
Sometimes these localised pressure drops are inferred to be independent of the fluid viscosity because they
4 SPE-184813-MS

are derived from Bernoulli's Principle which is written for an ideal fluid with no apparent viscosity. In
reality the fluid viscosity does have a direct impact on the magnitude of such localized pressure drops (Perry
and Green, 1999), however the velocity changes are dominant and the viscosity impact is in fact second-
order. Typical examples of localised pressure drops, located in completions, include sudden changes in pipe
diameter and flow area, such as casing holes, perforation tunnels and wellbore/fracture connections.

Pressure Loss Determination

Despite its simplicity, using Eq. 1 to extract information about the perforation friction behaviour typically
proves to be quite challenging and this is because almost all of the variables cannot easily be measured
or accurately estimated. In pragmatic terms, the WHTP is of course relatively straightforward to obtain,
the ISIP is an interpretation and can be reasonably accurately estimated (in those cases where tortuosity
is not masking the pick), and subsequent terms will be measured with a lesser degree of accuracy. Should
the Bottom-Hole Pressure (BHP) be available, from a dead-leg, Permanent Down- Hole Gauges (PDHG)
(Al-Busafi et al., 2013) or temporary wireline or memory gauges, then tubular friction can additionally be
removed from consideration, the ISIP picked from the BHP and the problem reduced to that of NWBF
considerations (pperf friction + ptortuosity).
As the NWBF is the sum of the perforation and tortuosity frictions, this can be further described by
expanding the two components into the following general equations as described by (Cleary et al., 1993)
and (Kogsboll et al., 1993):
(2)
Where, kperf friction is the perforation friction scaling factor,
q is the total injection rate (bpm),
ktortuosity is the tortuosity friction scaling factor,
is the tortuosity power law exponent.
Eq. 2 implies that, based on exponents, that as the flow-rate increases that any increases in the pressure
loss become perforation loss dominated, whereas at the lower rates the pressure losses are tortuosity loss
dominated. Therefore when constructing a plot of pNWBF vs. q for a range of rates analysed, a concave
curve is indicative of perforation dominated friction loss, while a convex curve is indicative of tortuosity
dominated friction loss.
A Step-Down Test (SDT) of an appropriate design (Massaras et al., 2007) will allow the use of Eq. 4 to
identify the individual scaling factors kperf friction, ktortuosity and the subsequent tortuosity rate exponent P (which
is typically close to 0.5), and then subsequently be able to infer the number of effective perforations.

Pressure Loss in Perforations

The efficiency of a fracture/wellbore connection can be assessed by analysing the pressure drop across the
connection under a suite of injection conditions. The resulting pressure losses can be directly related to the
connection geometry, which in turn can be associated with a range of different connection characteristics.
These characteristics include the Entry Hole Diameter (EHD) immediately at the wellbore (e.g. the casing-
hole for perforations) as well as the number of effective connections that are taking fluid (e.g. the effective
perforation count for perforation connections).
With few issues with NWBF in the vertical appraisal wells, there was not a significant amount of SDT
injections in the Khazzan wells and therefore little data available to analyse. However, there were multiple
ISIPs available at the end of each of the injection sequences that took place on each vertical and horizontal
well (e.g. After Closure Analysis (ACA), mini-frac or even main-frac), and the majority of these wells had
PDHGs. So while a conventional detailed assessment of the impact of perforation and tortuosity friction
was not directly possible, the approach taken assumed a dominance of the perforation contribution to these
SPE-184813-MS 5

losses based on these issues being mostly associated with fractures from the horizontal wells (i.e. associating
tortuosity with ineffective perforations).
The Bernoulli equation can be considered to be a statement regarding the conservation of energy for
flowing fluids through a restriction. Fundamentally, total energy per unit volume before a change in Internal
Diameter (ID) (kinetic and potential) is equal to total energy per unit volume after change in ID, which can
be written as follows:

(3)

Where:
p1 is the pressure before the change in ID (MPa),
P2 is the pressure after the change in ID (MPa),
is the fluid density (kg/m3),
h1 is the height before the change in ID (m),
h2 is the height after the change in ID (m),
v1 is the fluid velocity before the change in ID (m/s),
v2 is the fluid velocity after the change in ID (m/s) and
g is the gravity acceleration (m/s2).
For localized pressure losses, where the potential energy term pgh is negligible and in fact nonexistent
in the case of horizontal wells, Bernoulli's principle therefore states that any change in the kinetic energy
will result in a corresponding change in pressure. In the case of an incompressible fluid flowing through an
ID change without any leakage taking place, then due to the conservation of energy, when a change in the
Internal Diameter (ID) takes place then there will be an associated localised pressure increase or decrease.
Therefore, in the case of a perforation, we can resolve Eq. 3 as follows:

(4)

Developing Eq. 4 further, specifically for the case of a perforated interval and including all of the
necessary flow and perforation characteristics, then we can demonstrate that we can obtain the following
relationship (Crane, 1988) and (Perry and Chilton, 1973), as defined by Eq. 5.

(5)

Where:
p is the pressure loss (Pa),
is the fluid density (kg/m3),
q is the fluid rate (for that single perforation) (m3/s),
D is the perforation EHD (m) and
Cd is the coefficient of discharge (adimensional).
In this equation, the discharge coefficient is used to account for the vena Contracta phenomena, which
is the restriction of the fluid flow area that takes place immediately after the change in ID. The discharge
coefficient is usually a number lower than 1 and can be determined by experimental observation. This
equation does not include the viscosity; however viscosity will affect the pressure drop since it will implicitly
result in a change to the discharge coefficient.
The discharge coefficient is very difficult, to accurately assess and in the case of a perforation it is a
function of the viscosity, the fluid velocity and the orifice geometry. As these properties cannot be directly
6 SPE-184813-MS

measured in field applications, it can be shown that the discharge coefficient for a perforation is a number
in the range of 0.8 0.9.
When compared to an orifice plate, another important difference, with a perforated interval, is that there
is more than one hole through which the fluid is being pumped. This will impact the v2 in Eq. 4 and is taken
into account through the inclusion of Np for the number of effective perforations.
Eq. 5 is more commonly written in practical oilfield units (Willingham et al., 1993) as follows:

(6)

Where:
p is the pressure loss (psi),
is the fluid density (lb/gal),
q is the total fluid rate (bpm),
Np is the number of perforations (adimensional),
D perforation EHD (in) and
Cd is the coefficient of discharge (adimensional).
In the case of a perforated interval, in the equations above the flow area contribution is delivered through
the Np2D4Cd2 component of the equation, which describes the system deliverability from the wellbore to
the perforations. Purely mathematically, it is the perforation diameter that has the largest potential impact
on the pressure loss, due to the large power exponent. However, while the number of perforations may
only be a square relationship, there can be a vast difference from one situation or well- type (vertical) to
another (horizontal), in terms of the number of active perforations. The coefficient of discharge is also a
square relationship, however due to the relatively low range that is typically considered for perforations
(0.8 0.9), the discharge coefficient can only have a limited effect on the perforation pressure loss (as we
will see in the next section).

Pressure Loss Assessment

Given the absence of a suite of standard SDTs and the difficulty in measuring all of the parameters involved;
a practical approach to analysing the actual Khazzan data was selected. It was decided to ignore the
fundamental distinction between perforation friction and tortuosity friction; and instead look at the total
actual friction as a qualitative indicator of the perforation efficiency. With this approach the tortuosity
portion of the total friction will be treated as perforation friction, for the purposes of calculating of the
effective perforations open which will de facto underestimate this value. This is an imperfect approach, but
it will not diminish the qualitative value and relative importance of the analysis as a comparative measure.
In order to avoid any confusion, this efficiency measure will be called Connection Efficiency (CE), rather
than perforation efficiency, as this naming would only normally apply when both perforation friction and
tortuosity friction can be differentiated via an SDT. With this approach the best case scenario will be when
the connection efficiency is close to 100%, this is the case when all of the perforations are taking fluid (i.e.
the lowest perforation friction) and tortuosity are non-existent. Anytime the connection efficiency is lower
than 100%, it is an indicator that both excessive perforation friction and tortuosity friction are present.
It should be clearly understood that this is a qualitative methodology because in addition to choosing
not to differentiate between the two main components, there are other assumptions that have to be made in
order to proceed with a CE calculation. Some of these additional assumptions include the following:
a. ptubular friction: Where gauges do not exist pipe friction is calculated with a correlation based on
historical surface/gauge pressure data. This correlation is close to friction obtained applying Moody's
diagram. However, the prediction is not fully accurate since the actual data are spread over a large
pressure window.
SPE-184813-MS 7

b. BHP: The BHP is calculated/extrapolated either from a PDHG or the WHTP, of course when the
WHTP is utilised the estimated pipe friction is less accurate.
c. EHD: EHD for shaped charges is assumed to be the one reported in the published data.
d. EHD: EHD for the abrasive-jetting is assumed to be 0.5" based on available data.
e. EHD: EHD for the shaped charges and abrasive-jetting, when utilised together, are assumed to be
both equal and uniform.
f. Cd: Cd the coefficient of discharge is assumed to be 0.70 for the shaped charges and 0.90 for the
abrasive-jetting. The abrasive-jetting discharge coefficient has been calibrated on known data points
from field-data and yard-tests (Crump and Conway, 1988).
The general approach to calculating and assigning the connection efficiency was as follows:
a. ptotal friction: Calculate the total system friction as the PDHG (BHP) - ISIP (BHP) or if there is no
gauge data then WHTP - ISIP at surface.
b. ptubular friction: Calculate the tubular friction from the PDHG (or WHTP) to the top perforation
measured depth using the actual data correlation and actual pump rate.
c. NWBF: Calculate the NWBF as the total friction minus the pipe friction.
d. pperf friction: Equate to the theoretical perforation friction in Eq. 6.
e. Np: Calculate the equivalent number of perforations Np taking fluid, using Eq. 6 and the actual
pperf friction.
f. CE: Calculate the connection efficiency as the ratio between the equivalent number of perforations
and the actual number of perforations.
Coefficient of Discharge. The coefficient of discharge is a specific characteristic of the orifice itself
and depends primarily on the geometry of the orifice, not simply the profile (e.g. circular, oval, square,
rectangular, etc.), but also on other details such as sharp or smooth edges and thickness (see example in
Figure 1). Typically the discharge coefficient is determined with a laboratory test, by measuring the pressure
drop across the orifice and solving Eq. 5 (or its equivalent in the case of a non-circular shape) for the
discharge coefficient. The flow regime, and thereby the viscosity, also has an impact on the discharge
coefficient, for turbulent flow the discharge coefficient converges towards a constant.
8 SPE-184813-MS

Figure 1Examples of Discharge Coefficient for Different Edges in Circular Orifices (after Numeric-Gmbh).

In the absence of solid test data a Cd of 0.7 was assumed in the case of shaped-charges, due to the likely
sharp edges created in the process. In the case of abrasive-jetting, the Cd was calibrated to available data
from the literature and is 0.9, due to smooth and rounded edges. In order to make sure that this choice
would not impair a fair comparison, and because of the uncertainty on the discharge coefficient, a sensitivity
analysis was performed by varying the discharge coefficient chosen for both the abrasive-jetting and shaped-
charges.
Entrance Hole Diameter. EHD was selected based on the available data for shaped-charges and as 0.5" as
a default for abrasive-jetting based on the actual yard tests performed. Specifically for abrasive-jetting, the
choice of using a 0.5" EHD is considered conservative, in reality the EHD for abrasive-jetting would likely
be smaller and a smaller diameter would cause the CE value to substantially increase.
Parameter Weighting. It is worth considering the relative impact that each of the factors within the
relationship Np2D4Cd2 may have on the magnitude of pressure loss that can be experienced and this is
performed below and reported in Figure 2.

Perforation Diameter: (Dp) is typically lower than 0.7" but usually larger than 0.25", or
alternatively 0.004 < ID4 < 0.24 for the factor range. This results in a wider impact range than the
one associated with either the discharge coefficient or the number of perforations (see Figure 1).
It is of course noted that in open-hole completions that the flow area is typically much larger than
the tubing flow area therefore there is no reduction in the kinetic energy and pressure drop will be
minimal (perhaps some turbulent effect).
Number of Perforations: (Np) is a considerable factor as well, as the minimum number of effective
perforations is 1 so that Np2 > 1 and in practice it will fall into the range of perhaps 102
106 (Verticals) and 1 10 (Horizontals). In the case of a vertical well a substantial number of
perforations may be connected to the fracture, however for a transverse fracture in a horizontal
well only a limited number of perforations will be contacted, at the discrete wellbore connection,
regardless of the total number of perforations that have been shot.
SPE-184813-MS 9

Coefficient of Discharge: (Cd) will have the least effect of all the three of the perforation friction
loss factors and this is because its impact is fixed over the very limited range of Cd values of 0.7
1.0, resulting in 0.49 < Cd2 < 1. However, in gross pressure terms, this can still effectively double
or halve the resulting pressure loss that the wellbore connection demonstrates and so should not
be ignored.

Figure 2Perforation Pressure Loss (Ap) Dependency on Normalized Entrance Hole

Diameter Dp, Number of Perforations Np and Orifice Perforation Coefficient of Discharge Cd.

Connection Efficiency
The CE for the entire dataset (157 injection operations in 33 wells) is provided in Figure 3, each data point
represents the percentage of effective perforations taking fluid at the end of each injection. This dataset
contains the full suite of Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests (DFIT) performed on both shaped- charge
and abrasive-jetted zones in both the vertical and horizontal wells, only micro-fracs and cemented sleeves
are excluded from this chart as they are not considered relevant in any way to the abrasive-jetting vs.
shaped-charge comparison. The vast majority of the data points are from the Barik, however there are a few
additional data points from Miqrat, Amin and Nimr.
10 SPE-184813-MS

Figure 3CE - Full Dataset with Cd for Shaped-Charge 0.70 and for Abrasive-Jetting = 0.90.

A quick look at Figure 3 demonstrates that many of the shaped-charge points are close to the x-axis,
with very low CE values (average CE < 10%). These are the vertical wells where the perforated interval is
usually large with many hundreds of perforations, however during the frac only a small percentage of them
are likely to be taking fluid. This does not necessarily therefore mean that the remaining perforations will
not contribute to production. On the other hand, the abrasive-jetted perforations, performed in horizontal
wells, are typically showing a much higher efficiency (average CE 60%) with just a few exceptions.
Narrowing down the presented data selection to just the horizontal wells only (Figure 4), the comparison
is clearly directly in favour of abrasive-jetting. This chart demonstrates that abrasive-jetting is generally
associated with much higher (average CE 60%) while the shaped-charges are typically much lower (average
CE 30%).
SPE-184813-MS 11

Figure 4CE - Horizontal Wells only with Cd for Shaped-Charge 0.70 and for Abrasive-Jetting = 0.90.

If we adjust the coefficient of discharge and use a value of 0.80 for both the shaped-charges and the
abrasive-jetting, it can be seen that the abrasive-jetting CE values are shifted up (average CE 67%) and the
shaped-charge values are shifted down (average CE 26%), hence the comparison is even more favourable
for abrasive-jetting.
Multiple charts can be generated by changing the coefficient of discharge for shaped-charges and
abrasive-jetting, and these have been summarised for the horizontal wells in Figure 5. This is a plot of the
CE for both the shaped-charge(s) and the abrasive-jetting vs. a variation in the coefficient of discharge over
a range of 0.5 < Cd < 1.0.
12 SPE-184813-MS

Figure 5Variation of CE with Cd for Shaped-Charges and Abrasive-Jetting.

We can see that Figure 5 qualitatively demonstrates that the abrasive-jetting approach is more efficient on
average, than the shaped-charges; for the entire dataset analysed. Additionally it can also be shown that the
few poor results that did occur with abrasive-jetting were primarily due to operational issues on location.
These operational issues were related to the pumping of the abrasive slurry or were associated with a non-
optimized Well-Bore Clean-Up (WBCU) procedure. Poor WBCU also negatively affected a number of the
shaped-charge perforating operations, and indeed overall increased fracture placement success (through
perforated intervals) were likely attributable to other solutions. These solutions included increased allowable
WHTP, improved WBCU practices and the selection of better rock quality (due to well placement).
Additional comments on the full horizontal data set are as follows:

An increased number of perforations do not necessarily translate into a higher CE; this is discernible
from the 18 SPF zones as well as reperforating attempts to improve injectivity.
Typically longer perforated intervals (2 ft or more) result in a lower CE, this is likely a sign of the
creation of increased tortuosity due to the longer perforated interval.
In conclusion it can be shown that abrasive-jetting or very short perforated intervals show the best overall
performance, see
Figure 6 in terms of connection efficiency. Re-introducing abrasive-jetting in the next cemented
completion, as well as trail abrasive-jetting slotting, may further improve connection efficiency by having
a larger flow area and perforation volume.
SPE-184813-MS 13

Figure 6Horizontal Wells and Mini-Fracs only with Cd for Shaped-Charge 0.70 and for Abrasive-Jetting = 0.90.

Connection Friction
Another means of comparing shaped-charges and abrasive-jetting, in terms of the wellbore connection, is by
comparing the analysis of the actual frictions or NWBF, measured during the injection tests. A first look at
the friction data shows similar averages between abrasive-jetting and shaped-charges, however most of the
shaped-charge intervals are perforated with 18, 24 or 36 holes while the abrasive- jetting are all completed
with 6 holes. This confirms again that abrasive-jetting is performing better that shaped charges. Abrasive-
jetting has an average NWBF of 630 psi, while shaped-charges have an average NWBF of 985 psi (Figure 7).
14 SPE-184813-MS

Figure 7NWBF Levels in the Horizontals.

Connection Tests Performed

In order to progress selection of further field trials, it was determined that there were some data gaps in
available performance data, for both shaped-charges and abrasive-jetting. In order to address this, a number
of additional tests were arranged for both of these approaches, the appropriate data was gathered and the
field-trial selection process was progressed.

Connection Tests with Shaped-Charges

A qualified vendor performed a number of tests on a selection of shaped-charges using analogue outcrop
samples (Crab Orchard Sandstone). The geometry of these tests was set-up with a worst case scenario for
the casing/cement; with casing lying on the bottom of the open hole and with the shaped-charge perforating
upward through the thickest cement sheath. The reservoir pressure conditions were simulated for the tests;
however the temperature was kept at an ambient level; the tests were aligned with APIRP19B Section II
requirements (APIRP 19B, 2000).
Table 1 below, provides a summary of all the shaped-charge tests from the Phase-1 testing programme,
consisting of all of the shaped-charges under consideration. Table 1 also contains the Phase-2 Tests, which
were repeats of the best performing shaped-charges from Phase-1. Finally, the Phase-3 Tests consisted of
a secondary test of Charge #5 as well as a surface condition test for direct comparison later with planned
abrasive-jetting yard-tests.
SPE-184813-MS 15

Table 1Measured Data from the API Section-II Tests.

Phase-1 Testing

Total Target Core

Charge No. Manufacture Date Core No. Porosity (%) UCS (psi) EHD (in)
Penetration (in) Penetration (in)

Charge #1 03/26/15 2072 5.7 27,071 7.39 3.13 0.233

Charge #2 03/30/15 2070 5.3 27,980 7.64 3.38 0.318

Charge #3 03/19/15 2071 5.4 27,216 7.95 3.69 0.242

Charge #4 04/01/15 2075 5.8 27,120 8.01 3.75 0.306

Charge #5 01/15/14 2077 5.5 26,984 8.64 4.38 0.314

Charge #6 03/02/15 2080 5.0 27,959 8.70 4.44 0.245

Phase-2 Testing

Charge #5 01/15/14 2073 5.3 31,544 6.89 2.63 0.321

Charge #6 03/02/15 2081 5.1 31,677 9.26 5.00 0.224

Charge #3 03/19/15 2069 5.2 31,461 8.26 4.00 0.243

Phase-3 Testing

Charge #5 01/15/14 2082 4.6 32,777 8.13 3.88 0.260

Charge #5
01/15/14 2074 5.7 28,725 9.89 5.63 0.309
(Surface)

From these test results, it was determined that the most appropriate shaped-charge to select and progress
for field-trial was Charge #5. The selection of Charge #5 was based on the best combination of perforation
characteristics from the core penetration (2nd place in Phase-1 and 3rd place in Phase-2) and EHD (2nd place
in Phase-1- and 1st place in Phase-2).

Connection Tests with Abrasive-Jetting

The abrasive-jetting yard tests were performed using a very large block of the same outcrop rock as was used
for the shaped charges tests (Crab Orchard sandstone) and these tests were performed at ambient conditions.
For the abrasive-jetting trials the block was drilled with a hole-size to match the bit-size being utilised and
this hole-size was subsequently used to accommodate and cement the exact casing size/grade/weight, as was
being used in the Khazzan horizontal wells. In order to test variation in abrasive-jetting quality the casing
was set eccentrically in the wellbore, then for the test itself the abrasive-jetting perforators were oriented
toward the thinnest and thickest cement sheaths respectively (0/180). Figure 8, 9, 10 and 11 demonstrate the
details of the fixture and perforators used in the execution of these tests. The core-plug that was removed
to create the borehole was scratch tested (Schei et al., 2000) for UCS values, resulting in an average UCS
of 29,816 psi. This UCS value is considered within an acceptable range of the UCS values, as measured
during the shaped-charge tests that were performed with Phase-1 values having an average UCS of 27,388
psi, Phase-2 an average UCS of 31,560 psi and Phase-3 an average UCS of 30,751 psi.
16 SPE-184813-MS

Figure 8Top view of Abrasive-Jetting fixture, on the left without the Perforator and on the right with the Perforator.

Figure 9Side view of Abrasive-Jetting fixture, on the left without the Perforator and on the right with the Perforator.

Figure 10Abrasive-Jetting tool eccentrically positioned in the test fixture.

SPE-184813-MS 17

Figure 11Abrasive-Jetting, 6 jet, radial Perforator fixed cut (on the left) and installed on the Slotting Assembly.

The first abrasive-jetting test was performed with a static radial-planar perforator with a 6 nozzle
arrangement (60 phased); the second and the third tests were performed with the same perforator in
combination with the slotting tool (Figure 11). The results are summarized in Tables 2, 3 and 4. The best
performance was obtained with the third test (abrasive-jetting w/ slotting), this is likely because one of the
nozzles became plugged in the early stages of the process, as a consequence the fluid velocity through the
remaining 5 nozzles increased and thereby the overall perforation efficiency was improved, resulting in both
deeper and larger perforation tunnels. Table 2 shows the fixed perforator results, depth of penetration in
locations 3 to 6 are not reported because of the severe wash out and the inability to find the base ID of rock.

Table 2Result from Fixed Abrasive-Jetting (Test-1).

Hole Hole Size (on the

Formation Hole Depth (in)
Location OD of casing) (in)

1 2.125 0.50

2 0.875 0.50

3 NA 0.50

4 NA 0.50

5 NA 0.50

6 NA 0.50

Table 3Results from Slotted Abrasive-Jetting (Test-2).

Slot Formation Slot Width (on Slot Width (at Slot

Location Slot Depth (in) OD of casing) (in) end on OD) (in) Height (in)

1 4.875 0.125 0.1250 2.5000

2 2.750 0.125 0.1250 2.3750

3 1.125 0.125 0.1875 2.5000

4 0.750 0.125 0.1250 2.3750

5 1.250 0.125 0.1875 2.1250

6 3.000 0.125 0.1250 2.1875

18 SPE-184813-MS

Table 4Results from Slotted Abrasive-Jetting (Test-2).

Slot Formation Slot Width (on Slot Width (at Slot

Location Slot Depth (in) OD of casing) (in) end on OD) (in) Height (in)

1 5.750 0.3125 0.3750 2.2500

2 No Hole NA NA 0.3750

3 4.500 0.2500 0.3750 2.5000

4 2.750 0.1250 0.1875 1.8750

5 4.125 0.1250 0.1875 2.1250

6 6.125 0.1250 0.2500 2.1250

Detailed Abrasive-Jetting Test Procedures. Three separate zones were targeted within the fixture for each
of the tests (Figure 9). The first test was located 4" from the bottom of the 20" high test block. The abrasive-
jetting tool had a 3.06" OD and used a total of six 1/8" sized carbide nozzles that were phased 60 apart
around the circumference of the tool (see Figure 11). The bottom was completely plugged directing all flow
to be pumped through the nozzles. Using set bolts, this tool was pinned to the eccentric side of the casing
with a nozzle directly pointing to both the thinnest and thickest sections of the cemented annulus (Figure
10). Slurry containing fresh water and 100 mesh particle sized sand was blended to a 1 lb/gal mixture, which
is a typical concentration in abrasive-jetting operations. This slurry was then pumped at 3 bpm to achieve
an efficient cutting velocity for each of the nozzles. The test was performed for a total time of 17 minutes
as pressure was monitored and recorded just above the jetting tool.
The second test was located 6" above the initial test and the tool was integrated with a self-stroking
slotting assembly, located directly above the abrasive-jetting tool (Figure 11). The jetting tool was set up
with the same six 1/8" nozzle pattern as was used in the previous test. The slotting tool was assembled
and configured to stroke 2" downward over the allotted pump time in a continuous and smooth movement.
The same slurry mixture was pumped at 3 bpm for a total time of 45 minutes and pressure was once again
recorded.
The final test was located 6" above the second test and 4" below the top of the assembly. This test repeated
the same test procedure and tool setup as was used in the second test. Once completed, the test fixture was
disassembled and inspected (Figure 12 and Figure 13). Moulds were formed inside the perforation tunnels
to provide a physical representation of perforation geometry (Figure 14) and allow for accurate geometrical
measurements to be performed.

Figure 12Section of the Fixture after the tests showing the location of the Abrasive-Jetting Slots.
SPE-184813-MS 19

Figure 13Examples of perforation tunnel in the Crab Orchard rock analogue (left)
and the casing slot (right) created during the Abrasive-Jetting slotting tool tests.

Figure 14Moulds taken after the Abrasive-Jetting slotting test.

20 SPE-184813-MS

Test Comparisons
A true assessment of field perforation efficiency is difficult to achieve, and therefore laboratory/surface-
test comparisons are typically utilised as a proxy. There are however a number of parameters that can give
both a qualitative and a quantitative understanding (Behrmann and Nolte, 1998), of how a specific shaped-
charge or technique can improve the effectiveness of a wellbore connection; both for hydraulic fracturing
and production purposes. For example tunnel geometry is of paramount importance in achieving an optimum
wellbore connection; for the purposes of this study the parameters that were selected for consideration were
as follows:
Connection Open Flow Area. Perforation open flow area is critical to reducing the injection and production
pressure losses. The total flow area is simplistically calculated by assuming a single perforation open area
and multiplying by the number of perforations taking fluid. As noted above, with transverse hydraulic
fracturing, EHD has typically much larger impact than the number of perforations since the perforations that
are taking fluid are the few that are directly in connection with the fracture. With respect to the laboratory
and yard tests on both the shaped-charges and abrasive-jetting, the comparison was performed based on a
single perforation flow area (i.e. the number of effective perforations will be ignored). The flow area directly
affects the perforation friction and is therefore calculated at the entrance of the tunnel, using the EHD as
measured on the casing surface. The slot area calculated for the abrasive-jetting slotting is an approximation
due to the irregular shape of the slot itself; and is calculated as the area of the rectangle inscribed in the slot
length and width; although the external formation cross-sectional area is often in actuality larger.
Connection Penetration. The perforation penetration plays an extremely important role in connecting
the wellbore to the formation (Behrmann and Nolte, 1998). Specifically in the Khazzan field, the unusual
8 3/8" open-hole and the 4 " casing combination introduced a slightly more challenging scenario, with
the need to reach deeper into the formation with the perforation tunnel. This is why in selecting the
perforation charges, both the EHD and formation penetration were considered. For comparative purposes,
the perforation penetration is considered as the penetration within the core body only. In reality for shaped-
charges the tunnel extends from the casing through the cement and into the formation, while for the abrasive-
jetting the tunnel is practically in the core only since most of the cement is completely eroded creating an
almost perfect open-hole annulus.
Connection Volume. Within horizontal completions, because of geometry, gravity and the difficulty of
ensuring a perfectly clean wellbore, there is always the possibility of extensive connection plugging taking
place. A large tunnel volume will imply a lower possibility/or potential to become plugged. Tunnel volume
is calculated based on the core connection penetration and flow area at the core face. For shaped-charges
the volume is assumed to be the volume of a cone with a base diameter equivalent to the diameter of the
perforation tunnel at the core surface and height equal to core penetration and for abrasive-jetting the volume
of a prism.
Connection Surface Area. The effective surface area of a connection is directly related to the net force
exerted on the formation during the breakdown process. In general a larger cavity (volume and surface)
will generate more stress disturbance in surrounding rock and have a higher probability of encountering
formation imperfections, resulting in a less stable structure and a lower breakdown pressure. The tunnel
surface area is calculated on the same geometrical figures as used for the tunnel volume.
Table 5 summarizes the four parameters as noted above, provided as both absolute number and also
normalized to Test No. 11 (Charge #5 surface test), this was considered the baseline as it had been selected
as the standard shaped-charge for horizontal wells. Due to the slightly different test set ups, shaped-charges
were tested only in the worst case scenario, of 0 phasing, that is the condition with the thickest cement
sheath and the carrier lying at the bottom of the casing. Whereas the abrasive-jetting was tested in a suite of
different orientations (hence average values have been used here). The abrasive-jetting nozzle orientation
SPE-184813-MS 21

(4) that most closely resembles the shaped- charge has been entered into the table for both slotting tests (AJ
Slot #1-4 and AJ Slot #2-4). The last three rows in the Table contain the averages of the abrasive-jetting static
and slotting tests, for all 6 nozzle orientations for each test. These averages are of course more representative
of what could be the actual tunnel geometries when casings and perforators are more adequately centralized.

Table 5Comparative Summary of Shaped-Charges and Abrasive-Jetting Tests.

No Charge No. EHD Slot EHD Core Total Flow Connection Flow Connection Surface Surface
Slot Length on Core Pen. Pen. Area Flow Area Vol. (in3) Volume Area Area
width (in) (in) (in) (in) (in2) Normalised Normalised (in2) Normalised
(in)

1 Charge #1 0.233 0.099 3.13 7.39 0.043 0.57 0.0080 0.17 0.49 0.31

2 Charge #2 0.318 0.141 3.38 7.64 0.079 1.06 0.0175 0.38 0.75 0.48

3 Charge #3 0.242 0.112 3.69 7.95 0.046 0.61 0.0122 0.27 0.65 0.42

4 Charge #4 0.306 0.143 3.75 8.01 0.074 0.98 0.0201 0.44 0.84 0.54

5 Charge #5 0.314 0.159 4.38 8.64 0.077 1.03 0.0291 0.64 1.10 0.70

6 Charge #6 0.245 0.125 4.44 8.70 0.047 0.63 0.0182 0.40 0.87 0.56

7 Charge #5 0.321 0.123 2.63 6.89 0.081 1.08 0.0103 0.23 0.51 0.33

8 Charge #6 0.224 0.121 5.00 9.26 0.039 0.53 0.0191 0.42 0.95 0.61

9 Charge #3 0.243 0.118 4.00 8.26 0.046 0.62 0.0145 0.32 0.74 0.48

10 Charge #5 0.260 0.124 3.88 8.13 0.053 0.71 0.0156 0.34 0.76 0.49

11 Charge #5* 0.309 0.176 5.63 9.89 0.075 1.00 0.0456 1.00 1.56 1.00

12 AJ Slot #1-4 0.125 2.375 0.750 0.297 3.96 0.2227 4.88 3.56 2.29

13 AJ Slot #2-4 0.125 1.875 2.750 0.234 3.13 0.6445 14.13 10.31 6.63

AJ Fix #1 0.500 1.50 0.196 2.62 0.295 6.46 2.553 1.64

AJ Slot #1 0.125 2.365 2.292 0.296 3.94 0.681 14.93 10.896 7.00

AJ Slot #2 0.188 2.225 4.675 0.425 5.67 2.084 45.69 21.075 13.55

The data contained in Table 5 is shown in Figure 15; in these diagrams Test No. 11 (Charge #5 surface
test) represents the baseline as noted above. The graph includes penetration (not normalised), normalised
flow area (as defined by EHD), normalised volume and normalised surface area. The only parameter, where
the shaped-charge behaviour has outperformed the abrasive-jetting, is in the area of perforation formation
penetration; but this only applies once a minimum EHD has been achieved. This is also evident from Table
5 where the Charge #5 charges have the least penetration amongst shaped-charges (when performed at
reservoir conditions) and where Charge #5 shaped-charges are amongst the top shaped-charges for flow
area (i.e. EHD area). Abrasive-jetting excels against shaped-charges when it comes to both the EHD on the
casing as well as on the formation and this is also represented by a larger tunnel volume and larger surface
contact area presented to the formation.
22 SPE-184813-MS

Figure 15Penetration and Normalised (EHD Area, Volume and Surface Area) for Tests.

Another interesting observation is that the second abrasive-slotting test (AJ Slot #2) resulted in much
deeper and larger tunnel geometry creation than AJ Slot #1, as can be clearly seen from the averages in Table
5 and Figure 15. This was unintentionally caused by the accidental plugging of one of the nozzles, thereby
resulting in a higher velocity in the remaining 5 nozzles. Although this improvement in the efficiency comes
as no major surprise, the level of impact is perhaps unexpected with an average EHD some 40% larger than
the basic 6 nozzle configuration. This has a direct practical implication with the suggestion of plugging one
of the nozzles or increasing the total rate to replicate this effect in the field.
Figure 16 is a direct comparison between the Charge #5 (surface conditions) results and the mould taken
from the abrasive-jetting slotting created under similar test conditions. The geometric dimensions of Charge
#5 perforation are overlaid with the pictures of the mould (side and front view) and the picture of the
entrance hole on the casing (along with respective dimensions in inches). This figure clearly shows that the
geometry created by an abrasive-jetting slot substantially exceeds the shaped-charge created perforation in
all geometrical aspects.

Figure 16Dimensional Comparison of Abrasive-Jetting Slotting and Charge #5 at surface conditions.

SPE-184813-MS 23

Connection Field Trials Proposed

These investigations resulted in multiple findings and suggestions that could be applicable in future wells,
and indeed many of them have been already implemented as part of the ongoing Continuous Improvement
(CI) programme. These suggestions are specific to the Barik Horizontal wells, as the Barik Verticals and
the Amin wells were not considered part of the scope of work of this project (other than the inclusion of
some perforation efficiency data). However, many of the lessons learned and observations may be just as
applicable to other formations/well-designs.

Historical Review of Previous Perforations

The objective of this review was to highlight the differences in pressure response due to the perforation
strategy used. This was not limited to the shape-charges vs. abrasive-jetting, but also included the perforation
length and density. Due to the complexity and the level of uncertainty in friction pressure calculations the
findings should be treated in a qualitative way rather than quantitative. Nevertheless, the major conclusion is
that additional perforations (either as higher density or perforation length added) do not necessarily reduce
friction pressure losses, while the sets with fewer holes (typically abrasive- jetting) demonstrate much higher
efficiency. This would indicate that, although a reasonable number of holes should be present, in order to
reduce the total perforation pressure loss, that an excessive number of holes are inefficient given that only
a small percentage of them will take the fluid. The suggestion is to limit the perforation to a single location
(for abrasive-jetting) with a preference for abrasive-jetting slotting if available and no more than 1 ft when
using shaped-charges; this is aligned with previous shaped-charge industry conclusions (El Rabaa, 1989)
and (Abou-Sayed et al., 1995).

Shaped Charge Tests

The objective of these tests was to select the best option, for Khazzan Barik wells, for shaped-charges from
a suite of vendors. The tests were conducted at reservoir pressure conditions on an analogue outcrop sample
(Crab Orchard sandstone). The tests resulted in Charge #5 being selected as a balance between EHD and
penetration and was suggested to be used for future wells.

Abrasive-Jetting Yard Test

The objective of these tests was to select the most appropriate abrasive-jetting tool, between static and
slotting options, as well as to have a comparison to shaped-charges of created tunnel geometry and
cleanliness. The results clearly demonstrated that abrasive-jetting slotting can create a deep and clean tunnel
with the volume and EHD several orders of magnitude larger than those created by comparative shaped-
charges. It is suggested to trial the abrasive-jetting in the next cemented horizontal candidate, as well as
determining a means of measuring the impact of transitioning from shaped charges to abrasive- jetting
slotting in future horizontals. Abrasive-jetting slotting can be combined with sand plugs or single trip runs
(bridge plug and abrasive-jetting slotting) to maximize operational efficiency and cost savings.
Summarizing, the following are the suggestion approaches for the next horizontal wells:

Trial abrasive-jetting slotting option in the next available cased-cemented horizontal well.

Combine abrasive-jetting operations with sand plug(s) or a single trip run (bridge plug).

Use single point concentrated entry (1 ft for shaped charges and Abrasive-jetting slotting).

For shaped-charges, Charge #5 was selected as the most appropriate choice from tests.

Conclusions
The following are a number of conclusions resulting from this work.
24 SPE-184813-MS

An investigation into the frictional pressures associated with connections from horizontal wells,
for both shaped-charges and abrasive-jetting, concluded that abrasive jetting afforded the cleanest
and most efficient means of establishing fracture wellbore connectivity.
When shaped-charges were tested, the shaped-charge identified as Charge #5 performed best,
however re-perforating (of the same interval) was demonstrated to not improve friction loss
behaviour.
In the case of either shaped-charges or abrasive-jetting (static or slotting) the connection intervals
longer than 1 ft have been demonstrated to be inefficient and not result in a reduction in frictional
loss.
Abrasive -jetting and more precisely abrasive-jetting slotting have been demonstrated to be
superior in almost every facet of connection behaviour; and consideration should therefore be
given to implementing a well-based field-trial of abrasive-jetting slotting into the programme at
the earliest opportunity.
For abrasive-jetting, consideration should be given to reducing the number of jetting nozzles from
the current 6 (60) to 5 (72) or examining ways in which pump-rate can be increased during
abrasive-jetting operations, in order to maximize hydraulics during abrasive-jetting.
Abrasive-jetting, either static or slotting, can be combined with sand-plug and/or bridge-plug
setting to maximise the intra-frac efficiency of the Coiled-Tubing operations that are required for
the abrasive-jetting operations.
Including early use of appropriately designed SDTs means that suitable data is gathered and
available earlier in an Appraisal programme; such data can prove highly useful later in the
Development phase as wellbores are optimised.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Oil & Gas (MOG) and Oman Oil Company Exploration and
Production (OOCEP) in the Sultanate of Oman for their kind permission to publish this paper. The authors
would also like to thank all members of the BP Oman Sub-Surface and Wells Teams for their dedication
in continuing to work through the challenges of the Khazzan Development and their support in preparing
this paper. Finally a special thanks to David Ayre and Cameron Tope as well as Baker Hughes Pine Island
laboratory facility for the support and execution of the shaped-charges tests.

Nomenclature
ACA After Closure Analysis.
BHP Bottom Hole Pressure (psi).
CE Connection Efficiency (%).
EHD Entry Hole Diameter (inches).
EUR Estimated Ultimate Recovery (bcf).
ID Internal Diameter (inches).
ISIP Instantaneous Shut In Pressure (psi).
NWBF Near Well Bore Friction (psi).
PDHG Permanent Down Hole Gauge.
SDT Step Down Test.
TSO Tip Screen-Out.
WHTP Wellhead Treating Pressure (psi).
SPE-184813-MS 25

References
Abou-Sayed, I. S., Schueler, S. K., Ehrl, E. and Hendriks, W. P. 1995. Multiple Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation in a Deep,
Horizontal, Tight-Gas Well. Presented at SPE ATCE, Dallas, Texas, USA, 22-25 October. SPE-30532-JPT. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/30532-JPT.
Clark, R. A., Adil, I. and Al Busafi, B. 2013. Creating Value Through Permanent Down Hole Gauges in Oman Block A
Tight Gas Appraisal. Presented at SPE Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman,
28-30 January. SPE-164039-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/164039-MS.
Al Shueili, A., Al Manji, A., Rylance, M. 2016. Khazzan: Making the Most of the Fracturing Sweet-Spot between Verticals
and Horizontals. Presented at SPE HFTC, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 9-11 February. SPE-179140-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/179140-MS.
API Recommended Practice 19B, Recommended Practices for Evaluation of Well Perforators, First Edition, 2000.
Bernoulli, D. 1738. Hydrodynamica.
Behrmann, L.A. and Nolte, K.G. 1998. Perforating Requirements for Fracture Stimulations. Presented at the
SPE Formation Damage Control Conference, Lafayette, LA, USA, 18-19 February. SPE-39453-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/39453-MS.
Cleary, M.P., Johnson, D.E., Kogsb0ll, H-H., Owens, K.A., Perry, K.F., de Pater, C.J., Stachel, A., Schmidt, H. and
Tambini, M. 1993. Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs to Avoid Premature Screen-Out of Hydraulic Factures
with Adequate Proppant Concentration. Presented at the SPE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO,
USA, 12-14 April. SPE-25892-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/25892-MS.
Crane Engineering Department. 1988. Flow of Fluids through Valves, Fittings and Pipe. Technical Paper No. 410, Crane
Co. PP 2-14, 215, 3-14, A-20.
Crump, J.B, and Conway, M.W. 1986. Effect of Perforation-Entry Friction on Bottomhole Treating Analysis. Presented
at SPE ATCE, New Orleans, 5-8 October. SPE-15474-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/15474-PA.
El Rabaa, W. 1989. Experimental Study of Hydraulic Fracture Geometry Initiated from Horizontal Wells. Presented at
SPE ATCE San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-11 October. SPE-19720-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/19720-MS.
Kogsb0ll, H.H., Pitts, M.J., and Owens, K.A. 1993. Effects of Tortuosity in Fracture Stimulation of Horizontal Wells - A
Case Study of the Dan Field. Presented at the Onshore Europe, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 7-10 September. SPE-26796-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/26796-MS.
Martins, J. P., Leung, K. H., Jackson, M. R., Stewart, D. R. and Carr, A. H. 1989. Tip Screenout Fracturing Applied to
the Ravenspurn South Gas Field Development. Presented at the SPE ATCE, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-11 October.
SPE-19766-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/19766-PA.
Massaras, L.V., Dragomir, A. and Chiriac, D. 2007. Enhanced Fracture Entry Friction Analysis of the Rate Step-
Down Test. Presented at the SPE HFTC, College Station, TX, USA, 29-31 January. SPE-106058-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/106058-MS.
Perry, R.H. and Chilton, C.H. 1973. Chemical Engineers Handbook, 5th Edition, pp. 514, 5-15 and 5-16.
Perry, R.H. and Green, D.W., 1999, Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 7th Edition, Chap 6, 6-20 and Chap 8, 8-48.
Nicolaysen, A., Casero, A., Roy, A., Rylance, M., Kurniadi, S. Batmaz, T. 2016. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: A Case
History of a Multi Stage Hydraulic Fracturing Horizontal Well Tight-Gas Development in Oman. Presented at SPE
Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 9-11 February. SPE-179142-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/179142-MS.
Rylance, M, Nicolaysen, A, Ishteiwy, O., Judd, T., Huey, T., Giffin W. 2011. Hydraulic Fracturing: Key to Effective
Khazzan-Makarem Tight-Gas Appraisal. Presented at SPE MEUG Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Sultanate of
Oman, 31-Jannuary to 2 February. SPE-142783-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/142783-MS.
Schei, G., Fjaer, E., Detournay, E., Kenter, C.J., Fuh, G.F. and Zausa, F. 2000. The Scratch Test: An Attractive Technique
for Determining Strength and Elastic Properties of Sedimentary Rocks. Presented at the SPE ATCE, Dallas, TX, USA,
1-4 October. SPE-63255-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/63255-MS.
Willingham, J.D., Tan, H.C. and Norman, L.R. 1993. Perforation Friction pressure of Fracturing Fluid Slurries. Presented
at the SPE Low Permeability Reservoir Symposium, Denver, CO, USA, 12-14 April. SPE-25891-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/25891-MS.