SPE-184878-MS

Improved Hydraulic Fracturing Perforation Efficiency Observed With

Constant Entry Hole and Constant Penetration Perforating System

David Cuthill, Wenbo Yang, and John Hardesty, GEODynamics, Inc.

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
Conventional perforating systems exhibit a distribution of perforation entry hole diameters around the
circumference of the casing, when the system is decentralized within the wellbore. In the case of horizontal,
limited entry, cluster style perforating operations the perforating system normally lies along the bottom of
the casing. When hydraulically fracturing these intervals, perforation efficiency is difficult to predict since
the entry hole diameters and perforation penetrations are not definitive.
A perforating system has been developed which provides a consistent entrance hole diameter and
formation penetration independent of the clearance between the perforating carrier and casing. The system
has been engineered to provide optimal perforation placement and to ensure that every perforation is the
same regardless of circumferential position. The system provides a somewhat shallower penetration depth
than conventional charges but some data suggests that depth of penetration may not significantly impact
unconventional fracturing operations.
The system has been field tested in well over 5000 stages in a variety of unconventional resource
field applications. Direct comparisons with conventional perforating systems show improved perforation
efficiency as observed through step rate test analysis conducted during hydraulic fracturing operations.
Case studies are presented which illustrate the impact of having all perforations with a consistent
penetration and constant entry hole diameter. With each individual perforation configured identically, no
one perforation can dominate during hydraulic fracturing operations, and as a result more perforations may
contribute to fracture development.

Introduction
Perforating is the most common technique used to provide a flow path connecting the wellbore to the
reservoir. This is primarily due to the efficiency, adaptability, and reliability of the method. High explosive
shaped charges are used to penetrate the casing, cement sheath, and formation to create the perforation. The
configuration of the perforated completion is determined by several customizable factors which include the
shot density (the number of perforations per length of carrier); the shot phasing (the circumferential shot
pattern); the depth of penetration of the perforation into the formation; and the diameter of the hole which
2 SPE-184878-MS

is created within the casing. Depending on the application and desired outcome any or all parameters can
be altered as required.

Conventional perforating system

A perforating system's performance is normally assessed by the entrance hole diameter and rock penetration
that can be achieved in a particular casing size and formation.

Entrance Hole Diameter (EHD)

The EHD is the measure of the diameter of the hole that the shaped charge creates within the casing as it
penetrates through the casing into the formation. The EHD performance of a conventional shaped charge
is affected by the configuration of the charge case, liner, and explosive load; the charge stand-off from the
inside wall of the carrier; the thickness of the scallop in the carrier; the distance from the outside of the carrier
to the inside diameter of the casing (clearance); and the weight and grade of the casing. In a decentralized
configuration, where the carrier is laying on the low side of the casing the only factor which varies is the
clearance. Commonly with greater clearance the entrance hole becomes smaller which results in a smaller
diameter on the high side (180-degree phase angle) and larger diameter on the low side (0-degree phase
angle). The perforations at phasing between 0 and 180 degrees have a diameter somewhere between these
high and low values, Figures 1 & 2. With some charge/carrier systems these variations can be significant.

Figure 1Entrance hole size distribution for a conventional charge.

Figure 2Hole size and pressure drop distribution for a conventional charge.
SPE-184878-MS 3

Most charges are tested under controlled conditions at surface adhering to the test protocol outlined
within the American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice for Evaluation of Well Perforators 19B
section 1[3]. This system performance is reported for a specific perforating system and casing configuration.
Unfortunately, the tested configuration results will not reliably represent the performance for other
combinations of casing diameter, weight, and grade. In many cases this testing is done in casing sizes that
are small relative to what the perforating system would normally be run inside and in a lower casing grade
than would be run in a well which is to be hydraulically fractured. Furthermore, an average hole diameter
is normally quoted in performance tables with no consideration to the effects of variations in EHD around
the circumference of the casing.

Limited Entry Stimulation

A limited entry type stimulation is a hydraulic fracturing technique in which the number of perforations
available for fracturing fluids to enter the formation are limited. It is commonly used in multi-stage plug and
perforate horizontal completions and has proven effective for stimulation of lower permeability reservoirs
in many fields in both oil and gas completions. Each stage can consist of numerous clusters of perforations.
A higher pressure drop across the perforations (perforation friction) is desirable to encourage distribution
of the stimulation treatment to all perforation clusters within the stage. The proper amount of perforation
friction is critical to the success of this method an accurate estimate of the perforation EHD is important,
Eq. (1).
With conventional shaped charges the EHD varies circumferentially, which will affect the radial
distribution of the stimulation since the perforation friction through each hole will be different depending
on the orientation. Also, a correct assessment of the perforation efficiency and stimulation distribution is
not possible as it is common practice to use the average EHD to estimate perforation friction in the design
of the stimulation and in post fracturing analysis.

(1)

Where:
Ppf = Perforation friction pressure (psi)
q = Total pump rate (bpm)
f = Slurry density (g/cm3)
CD = Perforation discharge coefficient
Np = Number of open perforations
dp = Perforation diameter (inches)
Accurate perforation diameter estimates are critical to the design of the stimulation; to predict hole
erosion; and to allow post stimulation data analysis. If the EHD varies then determining the number of
perforations which are open and the corresponding pressure drop is difficult.

New Perforating System

A new perforating system has been developed that provides a constant EHD and penetration at all phase
orientations. The EHD and rock penetration is consistent even though the clearance between the carrier
and inner wall of the casing varies, Figures 3 & 4. This performance is consistent even within common
casing grades and weights. Three 3-1/8 inch perforating carrier systems have been developed. These systems
generate EHD values of 0.30 inches (+/ 3.8%), 0.35 inches (+/3.0%), and 0.40 inches (+/ 3.8%) for
application in a range of casing sizes including 4-1/2 inch P-110 (11.6, 13.5, & 15.1 lb/ft) and 5-1/2 inch
P-110 (17, 20, 23. & 26 lb/ft).
4 SPE-184878-MS

Figure 3Entrance hole size distribution for a consistent entrance hole charge.

Figure 4Hole size and pressure drop distribution for a consistent entrance hole charge.

The new system relies upon a modification to the shaped charge design which alters the shape of the
jet created upon detonation, Figure 5. Part of achieving this consistent performance means that the charge
and carrier must also be run as a complete system to ensure that the stand-off and scallop thickness are as
designed and tested.
SPE-184878-MS 5

Figure 5Illustration of tunnel geometry for the new consistent charge.

To obtain this consistent performance, the resulting exit hole diameter in the carrier scallop is larger than
conventional systems, Figure 6. In a conventional system, this would also contribute to a greater chance of
debris release from the carrier but the design and configuration of the new system results in larger internal
debris size that limits debris release.

Figure 6Carrier hole diameter of the consistent charge is larger than conventional charges.

Consistent Entrance Hole Diameter

Since the perforation diameter is the same at all orientations and is predictable then the pressure drop is also
predictable. The EHD and coefficient of discharge is the same and consistent at all phase orientations. With
consistent diameter, proper design and evaluation of the hydraulic fracturing stimulation finally becomes
possible.

Perforation Penetration
Testing has demonstrated that formation penetration is also consistent at all phase orientations. To obtain
a consistent EHD formation tunnel length is somewhat reduced as compared to a conventional deep
penetrating charge of similar configuration, Figure 7. A reduction in penetration may not adversely affect
6 SPE-184878-MS

the completion since less penetration may also result in less formation compaction within the tunnel. For
a hydraulically fractured completion, break down and treating pressure may be reduced[5] due to a more
effective perforation flow pathway.

Figure 7Comparison of consistent penetration charge against various similar conventional charges.

Perforation Efficiency
To assess the impact on perforation efficiency a step rate testing method is recommended to determine the
number of open perforations and provide an estimate of near wellbore tortuosity.

Step Rate Testing

The step rate test involves pumping a constant fluid into the well at several distinct rates while measuring
pump pressure. From this information near-wellbore pressure losses, perforation friction, and the number of
open perforations can each be estimated[4]. The predicted surface pump pressure is compared to the actual
measured pressure and adjusted by varying the number of perforations open and the tortuosity to match the
measured surface pressure, Figure 8.
SPE-184878-MS 7

Figure 8An example of a step rate test where the objective is to vary the number of open perforations
and the tortuosity to match the measured and calculated surface treating pressures at various pump rates.

Analysis
Step rate analysis was used to demonstrate the impact how a consistent entrance hole diameter and
penetration system can impact perforation and stimulation efficiency, as compared to conventional
perforating systems.

Example 1
This well was completed with 43 perforated stages. Two different conventional systems were used in
alternating stages with a consistent EHD perforating system. In each case the number of perforations shot
per stage was adjusted to provide approximately the same area open to flow for each stage. Step rate tests
were conducted pre-acid, post-acid, and post-frac for each stage.
Analysis of post-acid data determined that stages completed with a conventional charge showed
perforation efficiency (the ratio of the number of holes open to the total number holes per stage) ranged
from 44-70 percent. Whereas for the consistent EHD system the perforation efficiency exceeded 80 percent.

Example 2
In this example 39 stages were perforated using the same selection of conventional and consistent EHD
systems as presented in Example 1. Post-acid step rate analysis indicated that the perforation efficiency for
the conventional system ranged from 51-66 percent, depending on the system configuration, and 80 percent,
on average, for the consistent EHD system.
In these and other examples it was identified that there is not a correlation between surface treating
pressure and perforation efficiency. Operational success based on a treating pressure target is not a measure
of how effective the stimulation treatment was across all clusters within the stage.
8 SPE-184878-MS

Having consistent hole sizes for all perforations can increase the confidence in the determination of the
specific number of holes open (perforation efficiency). It is fully recognized that all perforation clusters
may not be open to the same extent conversely it is possible to have a situation where some clusters
are completely open and others are not or to a lesser extent open. In theory holes in the more preferential
rock stress direction may be the only ones accepting fluid but by ensuring that all holes are consistent or
equivalent there is a better chance that the holes can take fluid will take fluid. The goal from an engineering
standpoint is to acquire accurate data and then optimize on subsequent wells to reduce costs and attempt
to achieve high perforation efficiencies. Use of other measurement tools, such as fiber optic monitoring,
production logs, etc.; in combination with good step rate data will allow continuous improvement.

Conclusions
A consistent EHD perforation permits optimization of limited entry stimulations since all perforations have
the same EHD and can equally contribute to the stimulation. A design based off a conventional perforation
system can provide misleading results - if proppant selection is based off the average perforation EHD then
the holes which are smaller than this average diameter may actually screen out. Any analysis to determine
the perforation efficiency of a conventional system will not provide meaningful results since the calculation
relies on the average EHD.
Accurate step rate testing allows for future optimization of the completion and treatment plan. Consistent
EHD charges provide higher perforation efficiency compared to conventional perforating charges run on
the same well.
This new perforating system eliminates the variable EHD of conventional systems and has the potential
to provide even flow distribution and velocity through all open perforations since the diameter, erosion,
and penetration will be consistent. All perforations have an equal chance of accepting stimulation since the
pressure drop across any single perforation is the same.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Marathon Oil Company and Apache Corporation for their commitment and
support of this new technology. Also, thank you to GEODynamics, Inc. for their kind assistance and
encouragement in the preparation of this paper.

References
1. Bell, W.T., Sukup, R.A., and Tariq, S.M., "Perforating", SPE Monograph Volume 16, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX, 1995
2. Barree, R.D., "Overview of Fracturing Technology", Course Notes, undated.
3. API RP-19B, "Recommended Practices for Evaluation of Well Perforators," American Petroleum
Institute, First Edition, Washington, DC, Revised September 28, 2001
4. Massaras, L.E., Dragomir, A., and Chiriac, D., "Enhanced Fracture Entry Friction Analysis of
the Rate Step-Down Test", SPE 106058, presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference, College Station, Texas, 29-31 January 2007
5. Halleck, P.M., Robins, J., Pekot, L., and Schatz, J., "Mechanical Damage Caused by Perforations
May Affect Fracture Breakdown", SPE 51051, presented at the 1998 SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting held in Pittsburgh, PA, 9-11 November 1998.