See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250088986

Perforating for Stimulation: An Engineered Solution

Article  in  SPE Drilling & Completion · March 2002

DOI: 10.2118/76812-PA

CITATIONS READS
7 159

4 authors, including:

Robert Lestz
Chevron
16 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Lestz on 22 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Perforating for Stimulation:
An Engineered Solution
R.S. Lestz, SPE, and J.N. Clarke, Chevron USA Production Co., and D. Plattner,* SPE, and
A.C. Byrd, SPE, Halliburton Energy Services
Summary
Point-source perforating has reduced fracture-stimulation expenses
in the south Texas Lobo trend. Although the producing intervals
frequently exceed 100 ft, the operator typically perforates the bot-
tom 5 ft of the interval. Data collected during perforating are used
to design optimized fracture-stimulation treatments. The optimized
treatments average 55% less proppant than the jobs designed pre-
viously with conventional practices that had perforations across
the entire pay interval. The new well’s initial production and sus-
tained performance has been higher than conventionally stimulated
wells of similar potential. In addition, the point-source-perforated
wells have produced significantly less proppant than similar wells
with perforations across the entire pay interval. Point-source per-
forating has reduced the cost of perforating, proppant, fluids,
equipment rentals, and cleanup.
This case-history paper presents the following.
• Historical account of previous completion practices (limited
entry, multiple-stage fracturing, and full-zone perforating).
• Discussion of the “perforating for stimulation” fracturing
technique currently used.
• Comparison of production results.
• Formation-evaluation methods (logs and bottomhole gauges).
• Perforating methods (phasing, charges, and perforating-
interval selection).
• Results from a recompletion confirming that depletion
has occurred.
Introduction
Perforating is a key component to the completion of most wells.
Typically, the decision made about where to perforate is based on
the location and the extent of the pay. The process of perforating
is usually limited to choosing the appropriate gun with the best
performance and scheduling the job. In the overpressured, low-
permeability environment of south Texas, a new perforating phi-
losophy has been adopted, in which “perforating for stimulation”
is the practice instead of “perforating for production.” This new
concept places the emphasis on the best perforation method for
stimulation and obtains key fracturing parameters during the per-
forating stage of the completion. Experience shows that commonly
accepted perforating techniques can cause well-designed stimula-
tion treatments to fail.
Cost Savings
The operator has drilled approximately 150 Lobo wells over the
last 5 years in the south Texas counties of Webb and Zapata. The
experience gained over this period has reduced completion costs
by U.S. $125,000 per well. These savings are derived from an
overall change in the stimulation philosophy and the ensuing pro-
cedural changes this new philosophy created.
Lobo Geology
The Lobo formation is a member of the lower Wilcox group and
has produced approximately 8 trillion ft3 of gas from two south
* Now with Ricochet Energy Inc.
Copyright © 2002 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 76812) was revised for publication from paper SPE 56471, first presented
at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October.
Original manuscript received for review 19 January 2000. Revised manuscript received 1
February 2001. Paper peer approved 7 January 2002.
March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion
Texas counties. The Lobo is a low-permeability, geopressured
sandstone that was subjected to massive slump faulting at the end
of its deposition. This created abundant faulting within the Lobo
trend to the degree that individual blocks were created, usually 80
acres or less. This is a significant factor because each well is its
own reservoir. Table 1 lists the typical reservoir parameters.
Initial Development
Consolidated Oil and Gas discovered the Lobo trend in 1973 with
the N.H. Clark No. 1.1 Because of the complex structural nature of
the Lobo and poor fracturing techniques, its full potential was not
immediately realized.
A major geological breakthrough occurred with the introduc-
tion of 3D seismic in the early 1990s. Two-dimensional seismic
was used previously but resulted in a 72% success rate. With the
introduction of 3D seismic, the success rate improved to 92%.
Also, improvements in fracturing equipment, breakers, completion
procedures, and 3D fracturing models have been significant factors
in making the Lobo trend economic.
Past Practices
In the past, completion strategy was based on perforating every
productive foot of pay derived from log analysis. Attempts to
stimulate entire intervals were accomplished with large pad vol-
umes, low Ottawa sand concentrations, and limited use of effective
breakers. After the treatment, the wells were shut in overnight to
allow the bottomhole temperature to break the thick, crosslinked gels.
In later years, it was realized that all perforated layers were not
being stimulated. The use of limited-entry perforating became
popular in an attempt to stimulate the entire perforated section.
This method limited the number of perforations to create excess
perforation-friction pressure. In theory, this would increase the
bottomhole treating pressure to greater than the pressure necessary
to break down higher-stress zones, thus distributing the stimulation
treatment to all perforated horizons simultaneously.
The shortfalls of both these methods were recognized when
cumulative production did not match predrill volumetric estima-
tions. The next method involved limiting the treatment interval to
one of the three primary Lobo sands and performing individual
treatments on each sand package. This method showed improve-
ments but still lacked the optimum results.
Observations and a New Concept
The factors leading to the new concept of “perforating for stimu-
lation” were conceived from production-log results, the lack of
success in adding perforations, tracer surveys, and information
provided in the advance-stimulation technology work done by
Aud, Wright, Holditch, and others.2
In an effort to better understand the completion effectiveness,
production logs were run on a selected group of wells. The most
revealing information was that the majority of the production usu-
ally came from a small interval, which was the best pay. Fig. 1
shows a production log from a hydraulically fractured well with
the entire 100-ft interval perforated. More than 90% of the 1,800
Mcf/D was entering from only a 5-ft interval.
This information demonstrated that the major factor contribut-
ing to production was connecting the wellbore to the fracture. This
theory was reinforced when additional perforations were added to
previously fractured wells. This “perforating for production” re-
sulted in no incremental production. Unless new perforations in-
37
 TABLE 1—LOBO FORMATION PARAMETERS

Depth 6,700 to 12,000 ft

Temperature 190 to 295ºF
Porosity 17 to 30 %
Permeability 0.05 to 5.0 md
Height 10 to 120 ft
Fracture gradient 0.67 to 0.97 psi/ft
Pore Pressure 0.56 to 0.80 psi/ft

tersect the fracture, minimal benefits will be realized. As evi-

denced by spinner surveys, linear flow is the dominant flow regime
in low-permeability reservoirs. From these experiences, fractures
in this area are believed to be tilted from the vertical and only
intersect the wellbore for a small distance. This situation enhances
the probability of multiple fractures in longer perforated intervals.
Multiple fractures will reduce fracture length and conductivity,
resulting in less-than-optimal production results.
Tracer surveys provided insight to fracture geometry and prop-
pant settling. Fig. 2 shows a well in which three isotopes were used
to tag the pad, early sand, and late sand. This well had the entire
interval perforated and treated at 70 bbl/min. The survey indicates
that four individual fractures could have been accepting fluid dur-
ing the stimulation. However, proppant settling can be observed by
the location of late proppant relative to early proppant. Comparing
the tracer log to the openhole log indicates that the majority of the
early proppant settled out in or above a shaley/silty zone, inferring
narrower profiles in shales and silts.
The information on the complexity of fractures brought forth
by many authors2–17 added more insight. Wright2,11 pointed out
(see Fig. 3) how perforating strategies can affect fracture geometry.
Understanding the difference between perforation and near- Fig. 1—Production log showing limited inflow.
wellbore friction helped explain early screenouts and excessive
treating pressures. More importantly, perforating was shown to The combination of these issues led us to ask, “Why not per-
have a critical impact on the amount of near-wellbore friction. forate based on stimulation needs rather than perforate what looks
Work presented by El Rabaa showed that in deviated wells with like pay?” It was understood that virtually all wells in the Lobo
perforated intervals that were four times the wellbore diameter, trend required stimulation. If the perforating concept could be
unwanted multiple fractures began to form.8 Application of this shifted to what is best for the stimulation job, then a multitude of
technique resulted in stimulation and production success in the improvements could be incorporated. The perforation interval can be:
Bob West field in south Texas, where only 2 ft were perforated.18 • Limited to small intervals to minimize multiple fractures.
Before the perforation scheme was changed, wells were typically • Positioned to take advantage of proppant settling.
treated at elevated pressures, and, in extreme cases, the proppant • Located above shaley/silty sections to take advantage of bridging.
could not be placed. • Positioned in the lower-permeability, higher-stressed rocks to
ensure that they are better stimulated.
• Limited to reduce proppant flowback.
• Positioned at the bottom of the pay zone, leaving alternatives
to recomplete or restimulate additional pay up the hole.

Implementation
An ideal opportunity to test the new “perforating for stimulation”
philosophy arose when Well B was drilled. Well B was the eighth
well drilled on its lease. All seven previous wells had perforations
in the majority of the pay, which always included the best-quality
reservoir. Well A was the best of the first seven wells and repre-
sented the best comparison to Well B. Table 2 shows the comparison
of log properties for both wells. A meaningful comparison of the
permeabilities was not possible because of the limited perforation
interval in Well B compared to Well A and because of the strati-
graphic nature of the reservoir, which limited vertical communication.
The openhole logs in Fig. 4 show the perforated intervals for
each well in the depth track with dark, solid lines. As seen in Fig.

TABLE 2—LOG ANALYSIS FOR WELLS A AND B

Parameter Well A Well B
Net ft of pay 89 ft 96 ft
Average porosity 21% 21%
Average Sw 42% 33%
Reservoir pressure 6,273 psi 5,884 psi
Fig. 2—Tracer log showing proppant settling and bridging in the (0.70 psi/ft) (0.64 psi/ft)
shaley/silty zones with late proppant on top of early proppant.

38 March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

 Fig. 3—Different perforating strategies can lead to different fracture geometry.

Fig. 4—Log comparison for Wells A and B.

March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion 39

 TABLE 3—TREATMENT COMPARISON
Parameter Well A Well B
Ft perforated 101 ft 5 ft 50-ft big-hole charge
Perforating guns 3 SPF 8 SPF
Perforation phasing 120º 60º
Fluid volume 2,840 bbl 2,221 bbl
Sand volume 501,000 lbm 351,000 lbm
Proppant type 16-30 resin 16-30 resin
Max concentration 10 ppg 15 ppg
5-ft deep-penetrating charge
Gel loading 30 and 35 borate 35 and 40 borate
Tubing size 41/2 in. 27/8 in. Shock absorber
Injection rate 50 bbl/min 23 bbl/min

Quartz gauge
4, both wells had similar sand qualities and demonstrated the dif-
ference in “perforating for production” and “perforating for stimu-
lation.” Well B was perforated in the lower sand section just above
a siltstone to take advantage of possible proppant bridging and
gravity settling and to ensure good conductivity at the perforations. Strain gauge
When the fracture closes, the fluid will migrate to the more per-
meable sands above the perforations, and gravity will help keep the
shale sections propped for communication to the upper sand se-
quences. If the 5-ft perforated interval had been at the top of the
sand sequence instead of the bottom, any settling from gravity
would have reduced the fracture conductivity near the wellbore.
Immediate flowback can also be used to optimize proppant distri- Fig. 5—Perforating gun with bottomhole gauge.
bution by accelerating closure.
The completion design for Well B started with reviewing the
production history and stimulation treatments of the previous mine the fracture geometry and the ability to effectively stimulate
seven wells on the lease. Treatments ranged between 100,000 to the entire sand package. Different perforated intervals were used to
500,000 lb of proppant. Proppant types also varied from resin- better understand the proppant distribution before selecting where
coated to lightweight ceramics. A production simulator was used to perforate. A comparison of the actual stimulation for both wells
to determine the optimum fracture length and conductivity for is shown in Table 3.
Well B. This identified that length was critical, along with con- The perforating scheme for Well B was to shoot a 5-ft section
necting all the vertical layers. Well B would be “perforated for of poor-quality pay above a silty section at the bottom of the pay.
stimulation.” Several 3D fracture simulations were run to deter- The perforating charges consisted of deep-penetrating and big-

Fig. 6—Bottomhole gauge data during perforating run on Well B.

40 March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

 Fig. 7—Prefracture production comparisons for Wells A and B.
hole, each loaded with 4 shots/ft with 60° phasing. A pressure
gauge was attached below the perforating guns to record reservoir
pressure and temperature.
A schematic of the perforating-gun assembly is shown in Fig. 5.
The first gun shot was the 5-ft, deep-penetrating charges to ensure
effective communication with the reservoir. Before repositioning
the guns, a 1-hour build was obtained to quantify reservoir pres-
sure and permeability. The second gun shot the same 5-ft interval
with big-hole charges. The big-hole charges would provide perfo-
rations large enough to accept 16-30 proppant at higher sand con-
centrations during the fracture stimulation. A breakdown and mi-
crofracture was performed at bbl/min to determine the fracture-
extension pressure and to gather falloff data to determine the
closure stress for the perforated interval. The data obtained from
the bottomhole gauges are shown in Fig. 6.
The information gathered from this microfracture was then
used in the 3D fracture simulator to optimize treatment design, gel
Fig. 8—Post-fracture production comparison for Wells A and B.
March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion
loading, and breaker schedule [from the bottomhole temperature
(BHT)], and horsepower requirements.
Results
Comparison of the prefracture production rates shown in Fig. 7
clearly demonstrates the difference in “perforating for production”
vs. “perforating for stimulation.” Well A was “perforated for pro-
duction,” and initial production exceeded 5 MMcf/D at 3,000 psi
before the fracture treatment. Well B’s prefracture production
reached 660 Mcf/D at 1,250 psi, which was almost one order of
magnitude less than Well A.
Well B outperformed Well A, as shown by post-stimulation
production in Fig. 8. Post-stimulation production clearly indicated
that the entire interval was stimulated with sufficient fracture
height. These results convinced team members that “perforating
for stimulation” did not have a detrimental effect on well perfor-
41
 Fig. 9—Tracer log after Well B’s stimulation treatment.
mance. However, the prefracture reservoir characterization was
limited to the perforated interval.
The cumulative production curves in Fig. 8 show the long-term
performance of both wells and concludes that Well B continues to
outperform Well A. Following the stimulation, a tracer survey
showed that only one-third of the interval was treated; production
indicates that this is not likely. This infers that fractures are usually
tilted away from the wellbore, which, in long perforated intervals,
can have a negative effect on post-fracture production (Fig. 9).
Fig. 10 shows the rate vs. cumulative production and indicates that
boundaries were encountered in both wells after approximately 1
billion ft3 of production. This infers that both wells are producing
from similar drainage areas.** Fig. 10 confirms that Well B was
more effectively stimulated when compared to Well A. When Well
** Personal communication with Raymond Wong, Chevron, Houston (1999).
42
B was completed, a future workover was anticipated to confirm
that the fracture would effectively drain the entire pay interval,
as predicted.
Confirmation of Depletion
An opportunity to confirm that the “perforating for stimulation”
completion method was effectively draining the reservoir occurred
when Well B encountered a casing leak. When production could
not be restored in the original 5-ft interval because of mud damage,
a plugback to the best-quality interval commenced. Before plug-
ging back the well, a bottomhole survey determined the reservoir
pressure to be 1,968 psi. The original perforations were then iso-
lated, and perforations were added in the upper Lobo. The new
perforations were located where the tracer survey indicated that the
initial stimulation had not treated, as shown in Fig. 11. The analy-
sis of the pressure data acquired while adding these perforations
indicated that the reservoir pressure was 2,300 psi. Fig. 12 illus-
March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

Fig. 10—Rate vs. cumulative production comparison for Wells A
and B.
trates the difference in pressure response from initial and subse-
quent perforations. In addition to the lower reservoir pressure, the
fracturing properties also confirmed that the original interval “per-
forated for stimulation” had effectively drained the entire reser-
voir. Table 4 compares the key reservoir and fracture properties
between the original and the new set of perforations. As expected,
a change in the fracture gradient and closure stress was observed
when the reservoir pressure was decreased.
A fracture was designed for the new set of perforations when
the unstimulated production did not achieve the rates before the
casing leak. Because of the lower reservoir pressure, a greater
stress contrast existed, and a smaller job was pumped. This job
consisted of 100,000 lb of 16-30 proppant and 850 bbl of a low-gel
loading fluid. After cleaning up, production steadily increased to
GR Porosity
2nd 2nd Setperfs
set of of
1st Set of Perfs
1st set of perfs
Fig. 11—Tracer log with both sets of perforations.
March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion
2,500 Mcf/D at a flowing tubing pressure of 450 psi. Fig. 13 shows
the entire production history of Well B.
Conclusions
1. “Perforating for stimulation” should be the rule for formations
that require stimulation.
2. Perforating a small interval enhances the ability to stimulate wells.
3. Perforating a small interval did not adversely effect production
in the stimulated well.
4. Perforating in the low-permeability section did not impact post-
stimulation production.
5. The placement of perforations toward the bottom of the pay
interval offers multiple benefits.
6. Fracture height growth does occur, as predicted by 3D fracture-
simulation models.
7. Tracer logs can be misleading in determining height growth
when fractures are tilted in reference to the wellbore.
8. “Perforating for stimulation” provides an opportunity to suc-
cessfully reestablish production when perforations are damaged.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Chevron USA Production Co. and Hal-
liburton Energy Services Inc. for permission to publish this paper.
Appreciation is extended to Tom Neely and Mike Beckman for
their cooperation in testing the “perforating for stimulation”
method. We also acknowledge the graphics contributions from
Leen Weijers and Chris Wright.
References
1. Bain, R.C.: “Chevron Celebrates 25 Years in the Laredo Lobo Trend,”
internal memo, Chevron (October 1998).
2. “Advanced Stimulation Technology Deployment Program,” final re-
port GRI-97/0029, Gas Research Inst. (1997).
3. Daneshy, A.A.: “The Study of Inclined Hydraulic Fractures,” SPEJ
(April 1973) 61.
SB IR SC
43
 10,000

9,000

8,000

Pressure, psi
7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5
Time, hours
First perforating Second perforating

Fig. 12—Bottomhole gauge data during perforating showing

pressure deletion in upper zone.
4. Daneshy, A.A.: “Experimental Investigation of Hydraulic Fracturing
Through Perforations,” JPT (October 1973) 1201.
5. Weijers, L. et al.: “Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures Induced From
Horizontal Wellbores,” SPEPF (May 1994) 87.
6. Abass, H.H. Hedayati, S., and Meadows, D.L.: “Nonplanar Fracture
Propagation From a Horizontal Wellbore: Experimental Study,” paper
SPE 24823 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Washington DC, 4–7 October.
7. Vinegar, H.J. et al.: “Active and Passive Seismic Imaging of a Hy-
draulic Fracture in Diatomite,” JPT (January 1992) 28.
8. El Rabaa, W.: “Experimental Study of Hydraulic Fracture Geometry
Initiated From Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 19720 presented at the
1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, 8–11 October.
9. Daneshy, A.A.: “Experimental Investigation of Hydraulic Fracturing
Through Perforations,” JPT (October 1973) 1201.
10. Weijers, L. and de Pater, C.J.: “Hydraulic Fracture Reorientation in
Model Tests,” paper SPE 23790 presented at the 1992 SPE Symposium
on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February.
11. “Near-Wellbore Fracture Tortuosity,” technical description GRI-95/
0257, Gas Research Inst. (1995).
12. Cleary, M.P. et al.: “Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs To Avoid
Premature Screenout of Hydraulic Fractures With Adequate Proppant
Concentration,” paper SPE 25892 presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
12–14 April.
13. Wright, C.A. et al.: “Reorientation of Propped Refracture Treatments
in the Lost Hills Field,” paper SPE 27896 presented at the 1994 SPE
Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California, 23–25 March.
14. Wright, C.A. et al.: “Reorientation of Propped Refracture Treatments,”
paper SPE 28078 presented at the 1994 SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in
Petroleum Engineering Conference, Delft, The Netherlands, 29–31 Au-
gust.
15. Abass, H.H. et al.: “A Case History of Completing and Fracture Stimu-
lating a Horizontal Well,” paper SPE 29443 presented at the 1995 SPE
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2–4
April.
16. Behrmann, L.A. and Nolte, K.G.: “Perforating Requirements for Frac-
ture Stimulations,” paper SPE 39453 presented at the 1998 SPE Inter-
national Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Loui-
siana, 18–19 February.
17. Underwood, P.J. and Kerley, L.: “Evaluation of Selective vs. Point-
Source Perforating for Hydraulic Fracturing,” paper SPE 36480 pre-
TABLE 4—FRACTURE PROPERTY COMPARISON
Parameter 1st Perforations
Reservoir pressure 5,884 psi
Breakdown pressure 0.965 psi/ft
Fracture gradient 0.82 psi/ft
Closure stress 6,634 psi
Fig. 13—Well B production data before and after stimulation of
the depleted upper zone.
sented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, 6–9 October.
18. Boonen, P. et al.: “Improved Selection of Candidates for Stimulation
Treatment in the Wilcox Play in the South Texas/Mexico Border Area,”
paper SPE 39895 presented at the 1998 SPE International Petroleum
Conference and Exhibition of Mexico, Villahermosa, Mexico, 3–5
March.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl × 1.589 873 E−01 ⳱ m3
ft × 3.048* E−01 ⳱ m
ft3 × 2.831 685 E−02 ⳱ m3
°F (°F−32.0)/1.8 ⳱ °C
gal × 3.785 412 E−03 ⳱ m3
in. × 2.54* E+00 ⳱ cm
in.2 × 6.451 6* E+00 ⳱ cm2
lbm × 4.535 924 E−01 ⳱ kg
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 ⳱ kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.
Robert S. Lestz is a senior petroleum engineer at Chevron in
Houston. e-mail: rsle@chevron.com. Since 1994, he has been
responsible for new well completions and base production in
south Texas. He has extensive experience in hydraulic fractur-
ing and production optimization in north Texas and the Mid-
Continent region. Lestz holds a BS degree in petroleum engi-
neering from the U. of Texas at Austin. John N. Clarke is a senior
petroleum engineer at Chevron, working in Angola. e-mail:
ape32@chevron.com. Before his current assignment, he was
responsible for designing completions and workovers in south
Texas. He has worked in the Permian Basin and the Mid-
Continent region as a drilling representative, production fore-
man, and engineer. Clarke holds a BS degree in petroleum
engineering from the U. of Missouri at Rolla. Audis C. Byrd is
currently the USA & Canada Country Technology Manager for
Halliburton in Houston. e-mail: audis.byrd@halliburton.com. He
has more than 20 years of experience with Halliburton and has
worked in research, field operations, and sales, where he has
held various engineering and management positions. He is
currently responsible for technology transfer, training, and ca-
reer development for the field engineering staff, USA Solution
Team, and sales technology teams. Byrd holds a BS degree in
mechanical engineering from Louisiana Tech U. Dallas Plattner
is a production engineer for Ricochet energy Inc. in Laredo,
2nd Perforations Texas. e-mail: dallasd@netscorp.net. He was previously em-
2,300 psi ployed by Lewis Energy Group in Encinal, Texas, and by Halli-
burton for 7 years in Laredo, Texas, where he held various en-
0.65 psi/ft
gineering, operating, and sales positions. Plattner holds a BS
0.42 psi/ft
degree in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M U. at Col-
3,220 psi
lege Station.

44 March 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

View publication stats