Perforating Requirements for Fracture
Stimulations
L.A. Behrmann, SPE, Schlumberger Perforating and Testing Center,* and K.G. Nolte, SPE, Dowell
Summary
Perforating provides the means of communication between the
wellbore and the reservoir, and in a fracture-stimulated reservoir,
the perforation is the fluid conduit between the fracture and the
wellbore. The existence of, or lack of, a hydraulic microannulus
critically affects the choice of perforating parameters. The exis-
tence of a microannulus is dependent on reservoir and wellbore
properties, perforating parameters, and fracture stimulation execu-
tion.
Recommendations are provided to choose the best perforating
parameters of: shot phasing, shot density, type of charge interval
length and gun orientation. Recommendations are provided for
hard and soft rock hydraulic fracturing and extreme overbalance
stimulation.
Background
Within this paper, fracturing implies using proppant. However, in
general the presentation also applies to acid fracturing. The choice
of perforating parameters can have a significant affect on the qual-
ity of the subsequent fracturing or matrix stimulated treatment.1-4
For the combination of gravel packing and fracturing 共frac and
pack兲, perforating practices are governed by the gravel-packing
considerations. These considerations are discussed in the ‘‘Frac
and Pack and High-Rate Water Packs’’ section.
The objective of perforating for fracturing is to choose perfo-
rating parameters that minimize near-wellbore pressure drops dur-
ing both the fracturing operation and production with limited-
entry fracture placement being an exception. Some of these near-
wellbore effects are perforation friction, microannulus pinch
points from gun phasing misalignment, multiple competing frac-
tures and fracture tortuosity caused by a curved fracture path.5
Several of these near-wellbore effects from Romero et al. are il-
lustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. For any type of well treatment, there
are two additional perforation-related parameters that may also
affect the choice of the perforating system: the integrity of the
cement/sandface hydraulic bond 共microannulus兲 after perforating
and residual fractured-sand grains in the perforation cavity, par-
ticularly for a matrix treatment. Effective matrix treatments re-
quire communication through most of the perforations. This can
be achieved by either effective underbalance, extreme overbalance
共see ‘‘Extreme Overbalance Stimulation’’ section兲, or ball-out. If
a reservoir is perforated with insufficient underbalance to remove
most of the perforation sand debris, then fluid injection may cause
the comminuted sand to create an external filter cake on the per-
foration cavity during fluid injection. This was first observed on a
water injector and later on extreme overbalanced tests.6 Two
unique characteristics were observed in these tests: productivity
was not affected, and this ‘‘filter cake’’ was also an injection
pressure barrier with an estimated pressure drop of more than
1,000 psi. The existence of comminuted sand in the perforation
cavity limits injectivity and increases the injection pressure. High
pump rates and high fluid viscosity enhance these effects, which
are more important for extreme overbalance stimulation.
A microannulus is usually present after perforating and/or im-
mediately after pumping begins. Maintaining a good bond during
*Now Schlumberger Reservoir Completions.
Copyright © 1999 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 59480) was revised for publication from paper SPE 39453, first presented
at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette,
Louisiana, 18–19 February. Original manuscript received for review 18 February 1998.
Revised manuscript received 30 August 1999. Paper peer approved 14 September 1999.
228 SPE Drill. & Completion 14 共4兲, December 1999
the breakdown phase can be problematic because of a hydrauli-
cally propagated microannulus that is analogous to hydraulic frac-
turing, as discussed in Appendix A. Fracturing then proceeds as
though from an open hole with some defects 共perforations兲 that
may be near the preferred hydraulic fracture plane 共PFP兲. Most
laboratory fracturing studies have taken extraordinary measures to
avoid a microannulus by epoxying the casing to the rock, using
O-rings around the perforations, etc. Thus, the generality of these
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/14/04/228/2591812/spe-59480-pa.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 09 October 2022
laboratory findings must be viewed with caution. The magnitude
of the microannulus is dependent on the wellbore fluid and size
and type of perforating gun 共Table 1兲.
Except when gas is the wellbore fluid, perforating debonds a
portion of the cement/sandface hydraulic bond. This is a result of
the loading of the wellbore fluid from the gun swell 共charge/
explosive coupling for capsule charges兲, passage of the perforat-
ing jet through the wellbore fluid, and expulsion of the explosive
detonation gases into the wellbore fluid. For hollow carrier guns,
the debonding may be a function of the gun phasing. The debond-
ing promotes the creation of a micorannulus during formation
breakdown as discussed in Appendix A. Figs. 3a and 3b are
examples of cement debonding observed in large-scale block
tests7,8 with the microannulus effect evident in Fig. 3b.
An ideal perforation for fracture initiation would have a mini-
mum injection pressure, initiate only a single fracture and gener-
ate a fracture with minimum tortuosity 共turning from the initiated
fracture into the PFP兲 at an achievable fracture initiation pressure.
The following sections provide recommendations on how best to
achieve this ideal perforation. In the following sections, a vertical
well is one with deviation less than 30°.
Perforation Phasing for Hard-Rock Hydraulic
Fracturing
No Microannulus, Vertical Wells. For the following discussion,
the PFP is assumed to be vertical and therefore can connect di-
rectly over a significant distance for a vertical well. When the PFP
is not vertical, as can occur near a significant fault, the PFP devi-
ates from the axis of a vertical well. For this case, the ‘‘Deviated
and Horizontal Wells’’ section should be consulted.
Dry gas wells, wells swabbed of liquid prior to perforating,
wells shot with small hollow carrier guns, and wells shot with low
共1 to 2 spf兲 shot density hollow carrier guns are potential candi-
dates for maintaining good cement/sandface bonds. With a ‘‘per-
fect’’ cement bond, fractures are forced to initiate from the perfo-
rations, which should eliminate additional fracture initiation sites
around the sandface. Most laboratory hydraulic fracture experi-
ments have been conducted with a sealed annulus with the only
fluid entry to the reservoir through artificial 共drilled or cast兲 per-
forations. Thus, reference to these experiments should provide
insight on how to perforate wells with a good hydraulic bond.
Fig. 1–Near-wellbore microannulus pinch points „from SPE
30506….
1064-6671/99/14共4兲/228/7/$3.50⫹0.15
 Fig. 2–Near-wellbore fracture tortuosity „from SPE 30506….
However, these results should be used with caution if a microan-
nulus is likely after perforating or during breakdown of the for-
mation. 共See Appendix A.兲
One of the papers describing laboratory fracture experiments,9
shows that 180° phased perforations oriented within 30° of the
PFP provide good communication between the perforations and
the fracture. The good connection minimizes the multiple fracture
overlap and turning tortuosity and therefore minimizes restriction
of fracture width. As the perforation-to-PFP angle increases, the
fracture initiation pressure increases because of the horizontal
stress difference. Also, when the fracture initiates at the perfora-
tions, it must turn to eventually align with the PFP and the near-
wellbore fracture width decreases. This work suggests that if a
180° phased gun cannot be oriented within 30° of the PFP, then
the use of a 60° phased gun is recommended for a good fracture
connection. It is assumed that only those perforations closest to
the PFP initiate a fracture and the shot density of the 60° phased
gun must be three times that of a 180° phased gun to achieve the
same number of holes directly linked to the fracture. This assump-
tion also implies that multiple parallel fractures do not initiate for
this wellbore-stress-aligned case. However, the increased shot
density of the 60° phased gun would probably negate the assump-
tion of a minimal microannulus. Assuming equal perforation areas
open in direct communication with the primary fracture, Table 2
gives the tradeoff between different nonoriented phased guns.
Selection of the optimum gun depends on weighting factors
assigned to the different parameters, which becomes subjective
and dependent on personal experience. For equal weighting, all
guns are equivalent. However to minimize the initiation of mul-
tiple fractures and if the possibility of higher fracture initiation
pressure is acceptable, then a 0° or 180° phased gun could be
used but could give proppant entrance problems for hard rock at
pinch points should a microannulus exist, Fig. 1. In all cases, the
casing hole diameter should be chosen to give an acceptable in-
jection pressure drop 共see ‘‘Other Perforating Considerations For
Fracturing section’’兲. Because injection rates are generally greater
TABLE 1– PERFORATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING
MICROANNULUS
Promotes
Parameter Microannulus
Capsule gun Yes
Hollow carrier gun Modest
Small gun-to-casing clearance Yes
Liquid in wellbore Yes
Low shot density No
Gas in wellbore No
L.A. Behrmann and K.G. Nolte: Perforating Requirements
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/14/04/228/2591812/spe-59480-pa.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 09 October 2022
Fig. 3–„a… Picture of wellbore showing disruption of cement/
sandface bond. Intact cement sections are shown in black/dark
gray. „b… Picture of wellbore showing disruption of cement/
sandface bond. The fracture fluid that flowed around the well-
bore annulus is light gray.
than production rates and the proppant enlarges the perforations
and erodes near-wellbore restrictions, the production area open to
flow should generally be adequate.
The literature indicates other perforating strategies can be ap-
plied. For example, Stadulis10 discusses the use of 0° phased guns
at 1 spf with proppant slugs to prevent initiation or propagation of
competing multiple fractures and near-wellbore screenouts. 共It is
not clear if the observed success was from the use of low shot
density, closed microannulus or proppant slugs.兲 It is not known if
a dominant single or biwing fracture propagates with 0° phased
guns. A biwing fracture must initiate, but the wing opposite the
perforations can have limited flow rate and may screen out be-
cause of the restricted flow around the microannulus. The asym-
metry for a dominant single wing fracture offsets the drainage
pattern from the well location. To minimize multiple fractures
using 0° phasing, the lower shot density can help maintain
cement/sandface integrity; whereas the use of a 60° phased gun at
6 spf 共providing the same 1-ft spacing between perforations along
any azimuthal plane兲 will be more detrimental to cement debond-
ing and thus increase the potential for initiation of multiple frac-
tures.
Deviated 共deviation greater than 30°兲 and horizontal wells typi-
cally have an open microannulus or channel because of gravity,
independent of the perforator. The perforating requirements for
these wells are discussed in the ‘‘Deviated and Horizontal Well-
bores’’ section.
Open Microannulus Vertical Wellbore/Vertical Fractures.
The presence of a microannulus promotes fractures from the sand-
face, independent of the perforations, unless the perforations are
within about 10° of the PFP.7 Fractures can also be initiated from
perforations that are within about 30° of the PFP. Multiple initial
fractures are encouraged from these perforations between 10° and
30° from the PFP if sufficient fluid is allowed to move around and
pressurize the microannulus. However, maintaining significant
flow, and hence width, in more than one fracture is inherently
unstable because of the increased pressure requirement. The pres-
sure drop across the multiple fractures increases by the square root
of the number of fractures.11 When the fracture does not originate
from the perforations, the flow path connects through the microan-
nulus. The annulus separates from the sandface to allow displace-
ment continuity with the fracture width. However, as shown by
Fig. 1, geometric effects result in pinch points at the fracture
entrance that can cause large pressure drops for fluid flow and
near-wellbore proppant bridging. These points are subject to en-
hanced erosion, with their endurance depending on the rock hard-
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 1999 229
 TABLE 2– PERFORATING GUN TRADE-OFF, NOT
ORIENTED, VERTICAL WELL, NO MICROANNULUS
1ⴝBEST, 3ⴝWORST
Fracture Multiple Destroy
Initiation Fracture Cement
Gun Pressure Initiation Tortuosity Bond
0°, 1 spf 3 1 3 1
180°, 1 spf 3 1 3 1
120°, 1.5 spf 2 2 2 2
60°, 3 spf 1 3 1 3
ness. Fracture tortuosity should not exist for a vertical wellbore in
a normally stressed environment. Table 3 gives the fracture
tradeoffs versus gun phasing for a normally stressed vertical well
共deviation less than 30°兲. The shot densities given in Table 3 are
relative only. Determination of required shot density is given in
the ‘‘Other Perforating Considerations for Fracturing’’ section.
Selection of the optimum gun depends on weighting factors
assigned to the different parameters, which once again is subjec-
tive and dependent on personal experience. For equal weighting,
either 120° or 60° phased guns should be used. If one is more
concerned about a pinch point than initiating multiple fractures,
then a 60° gun should be used. However, the use of a 60° gun
may potentially initiate more multiple fractures and will require
twice the shot density of a 120° phased gun since only one of
three perforations will be connected to the fracture.
Other strategies are reported in the literature. For example,
modification of the pad with high pump rate, use of high viscosity
fluid and use of proppant slugs12,13,10 have been used to theoreti-
cally control near-wellbore screenouts by restricting fluid commu-
nication around the microannulus to reduce pinch points, tortuos-
ity and multiple fractures.
Deviated and Horizontal Wellbores/Vertical Fracture. The de-
sired fracture geometry for an arbitrarily oriented deviated well is
to initiate a single biwing fracture along the perforated length of
the wellbore that then gradually turns into the PFP. If the wellbore
is in the PFP, then the fracture initiates from the top/bottom per-
forations, and thus, 180° guns oriented up/down are recom-
mended. The use of oriented 180° phased guns has successfully
been used by ARCO on deviations up to 65°. 14-16 The guns were
aligned in the plane of minimum tangential compressive
stress.17-19 Recent laboratory experiments by van de Ketterij20
confirms these field observations. If the stress direction is not
known, then a vertical, up/down orientation is suggested. See the
following section to ensure that the casing hole diameter on top
meets the required size.
As the wellbore is rotated azimuthally about the PFP, the
length of the intersection of the PFP with the wellbore decreases
with a minimum occurring at a 90° rotation 共the PFP and the
plane through the top to bottom of the wellbore are at 90°兲. The
perforated interval should be continually decreased as the combi-
nation of well deviation and azimuth becomes less favorable. For
more favorable orientations, 10-ft perforated intervals would be
reasonable to minimize the initiation of nonlinking multiple frac-
tures. For wellbore deviation greater than about 75° 共horizontal
well兲, perforations should be clustered in a short length, less than
3 ft with maximum shot density and multiple phase angles to
maximize perforation communication with the fracture.21,9 This
limited interval, with sufficient zonal isolation from the cement,
enhances the propagation of only one dominant fracture. Staged
multiple fractures through cemented casing have been successful
in horizontal wells drilled perpendicular to the PFP.22-24
Other Perforating Considerations for Fracturing
Penetration Depth. Perforation penetration beyond 4 to 6 in. 共10
to 15 cm兲 into the formation is not required for fracturing because
fracture initiation from a perforation generally begins near the
sandface and propagates toward the preferred fracture plane.7 Gun
230 L.A. Behrmann and K.G. Nolte: Perforating Requirements
TABLE 3– PERFORATING GUN TRADE-OFF, VERTICAL
WELL, NOT ORIENTED, MICROANNULUS
1ⴝBEST, 4ⴝWORST
Fracture Micro- Multiple
Initiation Annulus Fracture
Gun Pressure Pinch Points Initiation
0°, 1 spf 3 4 1
180°, 1 spf 3 3 2
90°, 2 spf 2 3 3
120°, 1.5 spf 1 2 3
60°, 3 spf 1 1 4
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/14/04/228/2591812/spe-59480-pa.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 09 October 2022
performance for penetration should be compromised in favor of
casing hole size. Size requirements have been adopted from gravel
packing.25 The general requirement is for the minimum casing
hole diameter to exceed six times the proppant diameter. A ratio
of eight to ten times larger than the average proppant diameter
should be generally used because of variance between nominal
and actual hole diameters, gun positioning, and variation in prop-
pant size. Manufactured proppant is highly biased toward larger
diameters 共lower mesh range兲 to maximize its permeability. For
these proppants, the minimum casing-hole diameter should be
sized for the size of the lower mesh 共e.g., 16 mesh for the 16 to 30
mesh兲.
Perforated Interval. Limiting the perforated interval was previ-
ously discussed for deviated wells. Even when the perforated por-
tion of the well is nominally aligned with the PFP, consideration
should be given to limiting the perforated interval, particularly for
relative thick sections that most likely will be covered by the
propped fracture. For example, a 6° deviation between the well
and PFP over 100 ft provides a 10-ft offset and the potential for
more than one dominant fracture. Detrimental multiple fractures
occur when they overlap, causing their width to decrease in the
overlapped region. This region is likely near the center of the
perforated zone. Assuming vertical coverage of a zone by the
propped fracture, the limiting effects for reducing the interval are:
achieving sufficient hole density and the resulting converging flow
for the subsequent production. Another consideration for limiting
the perforated section near the center of a zone is to assist vertical
confinement of a tip screenout treatment 共TSO兲. The limited sec-
tion increases the vertical exposure of the slurry to fluid loss,
which increases the concentration and promotes competent bridg-
ing during the increased pressure portion of the TSO.
Large Stress Contrasts. Large horizontal stress contrasts favor
60° phased guns to minimize the perforation-to-PFP alignment.
Lack of alignment increases the fracture initiation pressure and
enhances the microannulus pinch point effect.
Shot Density and Hole Diameter. Minimum shot density is de-
termined by the perforation casing hole diameter, injection rate
per perforation, desired perforation friction pressure and fluid
properties. The perforation friction pressure for noncrosslinked
fluids is given by the following equation:
p p f ⫽0.237* ␳ * 关 q/ 共 C d* d 2 兲兴 2 , 共1兲
where ␳ is fluid density in lbm/gal, q is injection rate in bbl/min/
perforation, C d is the dimensionless discharge coefficient, and d is
the perforation casing diameter in inches. Lord et al.26 provide
tables of C d for different perforation sizes and fluid types plus an
additional pressure drop for crosslinked gels. Shah et al.27 gave
further correlations with viscosity for linear polymer solutions,
crosslinked gels and fracturing slurries. Fig. 4 gives the injection
pressure drop vs. casing hole diameter for water based systems
where C d is given by
C d ⫽ 共 1⫺e ⫺2.2D/ ␮ 兲 0.4,
0.1
共2兲
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 1999

Fig. 4–Injection rate vs. perforation diameter.
where ␮ is the apparent viscosity in cp.
Unless a perforating gun is centralized, the perforation casing-
hole diameters are a function of gun phasing. This means that the
injection rate is different for different perforation diameters. For
example, a crosscasing perforation diameter equal to 0.7 of the
near-casing perforation diameter has 0.49 the injection rate of the
near-casing perforation. An average perforation diameter can be
calculated as follows:
再兺 冎
i⫽n 0.5
具d典⫽ d i2 /n , 共3兲
i⫽1
where n is the number of effective casing holes.
Fig. 5 provides typical hole size variation resulting from gun-
to-casing clearance. For specific gun and casing systems, the Ser-
vice Company should provide data on the variation in casing en-
trance hole size for different values of clearance. Also, during the
fracture treatment, the hole entrance becomes rounded, increasing
the discharge coefficient. The hole size may also increase from
erosion by the frac sand.27 Both effects decrease perforation en-
trance friction.
The hydraulic horsepower and surface treating pressure limits
determine the maximum permissible treating rate Q. The number
of perforations in contact with the fracture determines the average
injection rate per perforation. For 0° and 180° phased guns, all
perforations should contribute to the fracture. For a 120° phase
gun, only two-thirds of the perforations will likely communicate
with the fracture, and for a 60° phased gun only one-third of the
perforations are likely effective. Appendix B provides an example
calculation to determine the minimum required number of shots
Fig. 5–Casing hole diameter vs. water clearance.
L.A. Behrmann and K.G. Nolte: Perforating Requirements
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/14/04/228/2591812/spe-59480-pa.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 09 October 2022
and thus shots/ft for a given pump rate and perforated interval. For
an acceptable perforation friction, one can trade off casing-hole
diameter and shot density for a given total injection rate. Except
for limited-entry treatments, the perforation friction should be
minimized 共e.g., 25 psi兲 to reduce unnecessary fluid shear and
proppant damage.
Frac and Pack and High-Rate Water Packs
Perforating requirements for frac-packs and high-rate water packs
are the same as for an internal gravel pack 共IGP兲. This is to assure
a good gravel pack if the planned fracture placement is not com-
pleted successfully. Perforating requirements for a gravel pack
have been driven by the need for a low production pressure drop
through the casing/cement tunnel that contains the packed gravel.
If fines from the perforation and/or formation move into this tun-
nel during production and are not expelled into the wellbore, the
gravel permeability is reduced and the pressure drop increases. An
optimum gun for an IGP would give maximum area open to flow
through the casing with the minimum hole diameter required for
gravel placement. A gun with shots phased every 60° or 45° is
desired. Depending on expected flow rate per perforation 共re-
quired minimum pressure drop兲, guns using big hole charges at
12, 16, and 21 spf would be used. Because of the low strength of
sand-producing formations, large fracture widths with a corre-
sponding large microannulus are created, and minimize pinch
points. A treatment design and execution objective should be a
successful TSO fracture that packs back into the gravel pack to
ensure the large microannulus is also packed and creates an ex-
ternal gravel pack, Fig. 6. The external pack provides a highly
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 1999 231

Fig. 6–Illustration of a sucessfully packed-back-tip-screenout
treatment.
conductive path between the fracture and perforation and is a
primary benefit of frac packs. Issues of multiple fractures and
tortuosity do not arise because of the erosive nature of the pumped
fluid and gravel on the weak formation. To minimize the chance
of a void within the IGP, the frac-packed interval should not ex-
ceed about 100 ft. However, the use of alternate path screens has
extended the frac-packed interval to hundreds of feet.28 Consistent
with the goal of achieving a competent IGP, if the fracture place-
ment is not completed successfully, standard practice is to perfo-
rate the complete gravel-packed section.
Fracturing for Sand Control Without Gravel Pack
Screens
Fracturing for sand control without gravel-pack screens can be
accomplished by pretreating the formation or post-treating the
proppant with resin, pumping curable-resin-coated proppant
and/or pumping chopped fibers with the proppant. Except for a
resin pretreatment, these techniques fix or control proppant flow-
back and provide a filter to prevent sand production. Because
there is no gravel in the casing/cement tunnel to restrict flow, the
perforation requirements are different than for frac-pack opera-
tions. The perforating objective, beyond hole size for the prop-
pant, is to eliminate any nonessential perforations that could pro-
duce formation sand. Therefore, for all well deviations, a limited
perforated section, 共e.g., 20 ft or less兲 with either 0° or 180°
phased guns aligned with the PFP determined before the treat-
ment, are recommended. As with a frac-pack, a design and execu-
tion objective should be to achieve a TSO that packs back to fill
the expanded microannulus with proppant, and for the screenless
case, with the proppant treated for flowback control to create a
competent external-pack that controls the formation sand. Again,
because of the weak rock, the pumped fluids wash away any near-
wellbore restrictions. 0° phased guns should be used when the
guns cannot be aligned with the PFP to eliminate any nonessential
perforations.
Extreme Overbalance Stimulation
Extreme overbalance 共EOB兲 has been defined as either the appli-
cation of a very high overbalance pressure during the perforating
process or a very high pressure ‘‘surging’’ of existing perfora-
tions. Other names have also been used: rapid overpressured per-
foration extension by ARCO and ‘‘high energy’’ stimulation by
Marathon. EOB utilizes pressurized gas 共usually nitrogen兲 to in-
ject various fluid systems into the formation at pressure gradients
from 1.4 to 2.0 psi/ft. The primary objective is to create fractures
either as a prehydraulic fracture treatment or as a dynamic fluid
diversion.29,30
Early publications29 suggested that effective multiple fractures
were created from all perforations. However, additional full-scale
laboratory fracture initiation experiments6,31 plus field tests32 con-
firm that although fractures may initiate from many perforations,
only a single biwing fracture is propagated from those perfora-
tions nearest the PFP. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the
initiation of parallel multiple fractures. All fractures initiate from
the perforations, with the primary fracture from the perforations
nearest the PFP. It is assumed that the sudden pressurization of the
wellbore casing closes any microannulus prior to hydraulic com-
munication away from the perforations. The high fracture pressure
232 L.A. Behrmann and K.G. Nolte: Perforating Requirements
gradients required are a result of at least four events. First, the
dynamic fracture initiation is greater than static fracture initiation;
second, the near wellbore pore pressure does not increase as much
as in a static injection; third, residual ‘‘crushed’’ sand debris in
the perforation tunnel restricts both fluid injection and pressuriza-
tion of the perforation; and fourth, lack of a microannulus and the
perforations not aligned with the PFP initiates against a larger
stress. These effects result in required pressures two to three times
greater than conventional hydraulic fracturing.
Because experiments show no microannulus effect or parallel
multiple fractures, only tortuosity must be considered. For a ver-
tical well, a misaligned 0° phased gun would be the least accept-
able, whereas 60° or 120° phased guns provide the least tortuous
path 共Table 2兲. However, Petitjean et al.,33 reports mitigating the
tortuosity for modest strength formations by minimizing the liquid
to that necessary for fracture initiation and using the nitrogen to
extend the fracture and erode any near-wellbore tortuosity. This
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/14/04/228/2591812/spe-59480-pa.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 09 October 2022
should be applicable for both vertical and deviated wells. Also,
Snider et al.,32 report the use of a proppant carrier to erode near-
wellbore tortuosity and improve near-wellbore fracture conductiv-
ity, however the fracture width is generally insufficient for prop-
pant entry.33
In general, perforating considerations for EOB in vertical wells
are similar to those given for no microannulus. The perforating
recommendations for deviated and horizontal wells are also simi-
lar. A detailed discussion of extreme overbalance perforating is
found in Ref. 34.
Nomenclature
Cd ⫽ discharge coefficient, dimensonless
d ⫽ perforation casing diameter, in.
dw ⫽ wellbore diameter, in.
E ⫽ Young’s modulus, psi
n ⫽ number of effective casing holes
pm ⫽ microannulus pressure, psi
pp ⫽ far field reservoir pressure, psi
ppf ⫽ perforation friction pressure, psi
⌬p ⫽ pressure change, psi
q ⫽ injection rate, bbl/min/perforation
Q ⫽ maximum permissible treating rate
␯ ⫽ Poisson’s ratio, dimensionless
w ⫽ microannulus width, in.
␮ ⫽ apparent viscosity, cp
␳ ⫽ fluid density, lbm/gal
References
1. Nolte, K.G.: ‘‘Principles for Fracture Design Based on Pressure
Analysis,’’ SPEPE 共February 1988兲 22; Trans., AIME, 285.
2. Nolte, K.G.: ‘‘Application of Fracture Design Based on Pressure
Analysis,’’ SPEPE 共February 1988兲 31; Trans., AIME, 285.
3. Daneshy, A.A.: ‘‘Experimental Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing
Through Perforations,’’ JPT 共October 1973兲 1201; Trans., AIME,
255.
4. Warpinsky, N.R.: ‘‘Investigation of the Accuracy and Reliability of
In Situ Stress Measurements Using Hydraulic Fracturing in Perfo-
rated Cased Holes,’’ 1983 U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, June
1983.
5. Romero, J., Mack, M.G., and Elbel, J.L.: ‘‘Theoretical Model and
Numerical Investigation of Near-Wellbore Effects in Hydraulic Frac-
turing,’’ paper SPE 30506 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 October.
6. Behrmann, L.A. and McDonald, B.: ‘‘Underbalance or Extreme
Overbalance,’’ SPEPE 共August 1999兲 187.
7. Behrmann, L.A. and Elbel, J.L.: ‘‘Effect of Perforations on Fracture
Initiation,’’ JPT 共May 1991兲 608; Trans., AIME, 291.
8. Mason, J.N. et al.: ‘‘Block Tests Model the Near-Wellbore in a Per-
forated Sandstone,’’ paper SPE 28554 presented at the 1994 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 25–28
September.
9. Abass, H.H. et al.: ‘‘Oriented Perforations-A Rock Mechanics
View,’’ paper SPE 28555, presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 25–28 September.
10. Stadulis, J.M.: ‘‘Development of a Completion Design to Control
Screenouts Caused by Multiple Near-Wellbore Fractures,’’ paper SPE
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 1999
 29549 presented at the 1995 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 20–22
March.
11. Nolte, K.G.: ‘‘Discussion of Influence of Geologic Discontinuities on
Hydraulic Fracture Propagation,’’ JPT 共August 1987兲 998; Trans.,
AIME, 283.
12. Aud, W.W. et al.: ‘‘The Effect of Viscosity on Near-Wellbore Tor-
tuosity and Premature Screenouts,’’ paper SPE 28492 presented at the
1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Or-
leans, 25–28 September.
13. Cleary, M.P. et al.: ‘‘Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs to
Avoid Premature Screen-Out of Hydraulic Fractures With Adequate
Proppant,’’ paper SPE 25892 presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoir Symposium, Denver,
Colorado, 12–14 April.
14. Pearson, C.M. et al.: ‘‘Results of Stress-Oriented Perforating in Frac-
turing Deviated Wells,’’ JPT 共January 1992兲 10; Trans., AIME, 293.
15. Pospisil, G., Carpenter, C.C., and Pearson, C.M.: ‘‘Impact of Oriented
Perforating on Fracture Stimulation Treatments: Kuparuk River Field,
Alaska,’’ paper SPE 29645 presented at the 1995 Western Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, California, 8–10 March.
16. Vincent, M.C. and Pearson, C.M.: ‘‘The Relationship Between Frac-
tured Well Performance and Hole Deviation,’’ paper SPE 29569 pre-
sented at the 1995 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Lower Permeabil-
ity Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 20–22 March.
17. Yew, C.H. and Li, Y.: ‘‘Fracturing of a Deviated Well,’’ SPEPE
共November 1988兲 429; Trans., AIME, 285.
18. Yew, C.H., Schmidt, J.H., and Li, Y.: ‘‘On Fracture Design of Devi-
ated Wells,’’ paper SPE 19722 presented at the 1989 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8–11 Oc-
tober.
19. Yew, C.H. et al.: ‘‘On Perforating and Fracturing of Deviated Cased
Wellbores,’’ paper SPE 26514 presented at the 1993 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3–6 October.
20. van de Ketterij, R.G.: ‘‘Raw Data of Hydraulic Fracturing Model
Tests-Series 5,’’ test report, Delft U. of Technology 共April 1996兲.
21. Abass, H.H., Saeed, H., and Meadows, D.L.: ‘‘Nonplanar Fracture
Propagation From a Horizontal Wellbore: Experimental Study,’’ pa-
per SPE 24823 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4–7 October.
22. Baumgartner, W.E. et al.: ‘‘Fracture Stimulation of a Horizontal Well
in a Deep, Tight Gas Reservoir: A Case History From Offshore The
Netherlands,’’ paper SPE 26795 presented at the 1993 Offshore Eu-
rope Conference, Aberdeen, 5–8 September.
23. Chambers, M.R., Mueller, M.W., and Grossmann, A.: ‘‘Well
Completion Design and Operations for a Deep Horizontal Well With
Multiple Fractures,’’ paper SPE 30417 presented at the 1995 Offshore
Europe Conference, Aberdeen, 5–8 September.
24. Abou-Sayed, I.S. et al.: ‘‘Multiple Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation in
a Deep Horizontal Tight Gas Well,’’ paper SPE 30532 presented at
the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
22–25 October.
25. Gruesbeck, C. and Collins, R.E.: ‘‘Particle Transport Through Perfo-
rations,’’ SPEJ 共December 1982兲 857.
26. Lord, D.L. et al.: ‘‘Study of Perforation Friction Pressure Employing
a Large-Scale Fracture Simulator,’’ paper SPE 28508 presented at the
1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Or-
leans, 25–28 September.
27. Shah, S.N. et al.: ‘‘New Correlations for Perforation Pressure Loss,’’
GRI Technical Summary, GRI-96/0208, 1996.
28. Jones, L.G. et al.: ‘‘Gravel Packing Horizontal Wellbores with Leak-
Off Using Shunts,’’ paper SPE 38640 presented at the 1997 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
5–8 October.
29. Handren, P.J., Jupp, T.B., and Dees, J.M.: ‘‘Overbalance Perforating
and Stimulation Method for Wells,’’ paper SPE 26515 presented at
the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
3–6 October.
30. Dees, J.M. and Handren, P.J.: ‘‘A New Method of Overbalanced
Perforating and Surging of Resin for Sand Control,’’ JPT 共May 1994兲
431.
31. Willson, S.M.: ‘‘Maximizing Completions Efficiency Through High
Overbalanced Perforating,’’ report CEA 61 Phase I, TerraTek 共Feb-
ruary 1995兲.
32. Snider, P.M., Hall, F.R., and Whisonant, R.J.: ‘‘Experiences With
High Energy Stimulations for Enhancing Near-Wellbore Conductiv-
ity,’’ paper SPE 35321 presented at the 1996 SPE International Pe-
troleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico, Villahermosa,
Mexico, 5–7 March.
L.A. Behrmann and K.G. Nolte: Perforating Requirements
33. Petitjean, L. et al.: ‘‘Well Productivity Improvement Using Extreme
Overbalanced Perforating and Surging-Case History,’’ paper SPE
30527 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 October.
34. ‘‘The Schlumberger Oilfield Review,’’ Autumn 共1996兲.
Appendix A— Propagating A Microannulus During
Formation Breakdown
For normal completion practices, the creation of a microannulus
should be anticipated during the breakdown process. The mi-
croannulus results from the same mechanics that govern the
propagation of a hydraulic fracture, but on a smaller scale and
confined to the annular circumference of the cement’s interface
with the well. The affected annular interface can either be that of
the cement and the casing or the cement and the formation. The
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/14/04/228/2591812/spe-59480-pa.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 09 October 2022
formation interface is more prospective because of the mudcake
remaining between the cement and formation.
A hydraulic fracture, or a microannulus, can propagate when
fluid of sufficient pressure energizes a prospective flaw and the
flaw is embedded in a deformable environment. Flaws of this type
exist in the cement interfaces and around perforation tunnels and
are in communication with the wellbore fluid. These flaws can
originate in the mudcake, which can rehydrate by capillary action
from the wellbore fluid or in a region of mechanical alteration
around the perforation tunnel. As the wellbore is pressurized dur-
ing breakdown, the fluid in the prospective flaw is also pressur-
ized, increasing the width of the flaw by compressing the material
surrounding the flaw and allowing more fluid to enter and extend
the flaw. For the microannulus, the relevant surrounding material
is the rock containing the wellbore and the casing confining the
cement. Increased fluid pressure in the annulus compresses the
rock and enlarges the wellbore radius. Similarly, the casing radius
changes as the internal pressure and external-annular pressure
change. The deformation of the cement sheath is relatively small
and can be considered as part of the rock containing the wellbore.
The annular width results from the combined radial deformation
of the borehole and casing.
The evolution of the flaw’s geometry is similar to that for a
hydraulic fracture originating from a point source of injected fluid.
䊉 The flaw opens and propagates when the energizing pressure
exceeds a ‘‘closure pressure,’’ equaling the stress tending to close
the flaw. For a typical cement composition prior to the break-
down, the stress in the cement sheath is essentially hydrostatic and
about equal to the reservoir pressure of the formation. Therefore,
under normally pressured conditions, the flaw’s closure pressure
is about the same as the hydrostatic pressure of the completion
fluid and the flaw can begin to propagate as the breakdown begins.
䊉 The flaw initially extends in a radial geometry from the per-
foration tunnel. Actually, extending annular flaws originate from
most of the perforations. The mechanics, describing the flaw’s
deformation, are relatively complex during this early stage. The
complexity results from the multiple regions of localized pressure
acting on the curved surfaces of the casing and borehole.
䊉 After some period, the individual radial patterns coalesce into
one microannulus around the complete circumference of the ce-
ment sheath. At this stage, the annulus is analogous to a confined
height PKN fracture 共that is, the height equals the wellbore cir-
cumference兲 and can begin to extend up and/or down along the
wellbore until breakdown of the formation by a hydraulic fracture.
For this latter stage, the mechanics governing the annular width
in the perforated section become relatively simple. The simplicity
comes from several sources. The expressions for the change in
radii of the casing and wellbore can be determined from special-
ized cases for the elastic deformation of a thick-wall cylinder. The
multiple-connecting perforations provide fluid with minimal pres-
sure gradients in the annulus. As a result, the pressures inside and
outside the casing become essentially equal, with no change of the
casing diameter, and the annular width depends only on the
change in radius for the borehole
w⫽ 共 1⫹ v 兲 d w 共 p m ⫺p p 兲 /2E, 共A-1兲
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 1999 233
 TABLE Bⴚ1– CASING HOLE DIAMETERS TABLE Bⴚ3– MINIMUM GUN SHOT DENSITY

Phase EH (2-1/2 BH) EH (3-3/8 DP) Actual Minimum SPF

SPF Pressure Using EH
API Data 0.61 in. 0.40 in. Using Drop Using from Table B-2,
0° 0.58 in. 0.38 in. Gun/Phase API EH API EH ⌬ p ⫽25 psi
60° and 300° 0.58 in. 0.37 in.
120° and 240° 0.49 in. 0.30 in. 2-1/2 BH 0.86 spf 70.5 psi 1.5 spf
180° 0.36 in. 0.27 in. 180°
2-1/2 BH 2.57 spf 70.5 psi 4.5 spf
60°
3-3/8 DP 2.18 spf 58.5 psi 3.4 spf
180°
where w is the microannulus width 共in.兲, ␯ is Poisson’s ratio 共di-
3-3/8 DP 6.53 spf 58.5 psi 10.0 spf
mensionless兲, d w is wellbore diameter 共in.兲, E is Young’s modulus 60°
共psi兲, p m is microannulus pressure 共psi兲, and p p is the far field
reservoir pressure 共psi兲.
As an example consider Eq. A-1 for a bottomhole pressure

increase of 2000 psi over the hydrostatic pressure, a borehole
diameter of 7 in., and the rock modulus and Poisson’s ratio of 1
⫹E6 psi and 0.2, respectively. For these conditions, the hole ra-
dius and microannulus width increase by about 0.009 in. 共or the
thickness of several sheets of normal writing paper兲. The hydrau-
lic conductivity of such a microannulus is significant when
coupled with a large pressure differential 共for example, 2000 psi兲
and a low-viscosity fluid: for example, less than 0.4 cp for
completion brine at representative bottomhole temperatures.
The conductivity microannulus created during the breakdown
pressurization provides the same pressure and fracture initiation
environment as an openhole. For a vertical well, it enhances the
creation of a single fracture in the preferred fracture plane,
whereas for a deviated well, the openhole environment enhances
the creation of the dominate fracture along the wellbore axis that
eventually aligns with the preferred fracture plane, as illustrated in
Fig. 2.
Appendix B— Calculation of Minimum Shot Density for
Fracture Stimulation
The following calculations illustrate the process and importance
of calculating perforation friction pressure drop and using the ac-
tual downhole perforation casing hole diameters.
䊉 Problem statement: Given the maximum injection rate and
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/14/04/228/2591812/spe-59480-pa.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 09 October 2022
䊉 Calculate average hole diameter for 180° and 60° phasings
using Eq. 3. Because the effective shots are always pairs of holes
at 180° phasing, n⫽2. For example, the average hole diameter for
the 2-1/2 big hole for the 0° to 180° is
具 d 典 ⫽ 关共 0.582 ⫹0.362 兲 /2兴 0.5⫽0.482.
Table B-2 gives the average hole diameters.
䊉 For both the 180° and 60° phased guns, use the average hole
diameters for the 0°/180° pairs. Because the guns are not ori-
ented, we do not know if the PFP will be closest to the 0°/180° or
60°/240° perforation pairs, thus a worst-case condition is used
共smaller average holes兲. Use Eq. 1 to calculate the average flow
rate per perforation: 0.70 bbl/min for EH⫽0.482 and 0.30 bbl/min
for EH⫽0.33. The flow rates for the API holes are 1.17 and 0.46
bbl/min, respectively, for EH⫽0.61 and 0.40 in. Divide these flow
rates into the total injection rate of 20 bbl/min to obtain the mini-
mum number of effective holes: 29 for the 2-1/2 BH and 67 for
the 3-3/8 DP. To obtain the total number of holes multiply the
effective holes by the phasing deficiency which is 1 for 180°, 1.5
for 120° and 3 for 60° phased guns and then divide by the 20 ft of
perforated interval to obtain the minimum required shot density.
Table B-3 summarizes these final numbers.
䊉 Check the required shot density and phasing with that avail-

length of perforated interval, calculate the required shot density able. Most 2-1/2 and 3-3/8 guns are built with 6 spf at 60° phasing
for two gun systems for both 180° and 60° phasings. Calculate the and can be downloaded to 2 spf at 180° and 3 spf at 120°. The 10
pressure drop if API entrance hole 共EH兲 data are used instead of spf 3-3/8 gun at 60° phasing does not exist with the DP charge
downhole data. used in this example; the maximum shot density is 6. This would
䊉 Given: Maximum injection rate⫽20 bbl/min, perforated result in a pressure drop of 70.8 psi. All other spf/phasings would
interval⫽20 ft, gun one⫽2-1/2 big hole with API EH⫽0.61 in., be special orders, requiring lead time and advanced planning.
gun two⫽3-3/8 deep penetrator with API EH⫽0.40 in., casing
size⫽5.5 in., 21 lbm/ft, Q125, and maximum 25-psi perforation Lawrence A. Behrmann is Scientific Advisor and Manager of
friction pressure drop. Perforating Research with Schlumberger Reservoir Comple-
䊉 Obtain perforated casing hole diameters vs. phase angle from tions in Rosharon, Texas. e-mail: lbehrmann@slb.com. Behr-
service company, as in Table B-1. mann holds a BS degree from the U. of California, Berkeley,
and an MS degree from Lehigh U. He was a member of the
1993–94 Forum Series in North America Steering Committee.
Kenneth G. Nolte is an engineering advisor with Dowell in
Sugar Land, Texas. e-mail: nolte@sugar-land.dowell.slb.com.
TABLE Bⴚ2– AVERAGE CASING HOLE DIAMETERS He holds a BS degree in civil engineering from the U. of Illinois
and a PhD degree in solid mechanics from Brown U. Nolte, a
Phase Pair 2-1/2 BH 3-3/8 DP
Distinguished Member and the 1992 recipient of the Lester C.
0°/180° 0.482 in. 0.33 in. Uren Award, was a 1986–87 Distinguished Lecturer and a
60°/240° 0.537 in. 0.34 in. member of the 1995–96 Forum Series in North America Steering
Committee.

234 L.A. Behrmann and K.G. Nolte: Perforating Requirements SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 1999