Spe 189880 Ms

SPE-189880-MS
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEHFTC/proceedings-pdf/18HFTC/3-18HFTC/D031S008R002/1230191/spe-189880-ms.pdf/1 by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, JT Univ on 08 January 2024
Mining the Bakken II – Pushing the Envelope with Extreme Limited Entry
Perforating
Paul Weddle, Larry Griffin, and C. Mark Pearson, Liberty Resources
Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference & Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 23-25 January 2018.
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
This paper presents the continuing evolution of our Bakken advanced completion design with the added
enhancement of Extreme Limited Entry (XLE) perforating. With this cost-effective XLE strategy, we are
consistently stimulating more than eleven perforation clusters per stage. Confirmation of this high number
of active clusters, or fracture initiation points, has been directly measured with radioactive tracers and
fiber optic diagnostics, and more importantly, is validated through improved production relative to offset
completions. The goal of this strategy is to consistently and confidently drive a high number of clusters per
stage, ultimately increasing capital efficiency by right sizing the cluster and stage count per well.
Practically, the number of stages for a 9,500-ft. lateral is limited to 40 or 50 stages in the Bakken due
to operational and cost limits. We believe the published trends on stage count are fundamentally linked to
the number of active clusters per stage or fracture initiation points, and by driving significantly more active
clusters per stage with XLE perforating in combination with previously presented High Density Perforating
(HDP), we now have proven the ability to reduce stage count without sacrificing performance.
Liberty now incorporates XLE as a key design technique to successfully stimulate 15 clusters per stage.
Production performance is encouraging and post frac fiber optic diagnostics support prior radioactive
proppant tracer data in showing that over 11 of the 15 clusters shot can be stimulated with slickwater at
80 bpm. XLE operational considerations for frac plug ratings, oriented perforating, even-hole perforating
charges, variable pipe friction and a review of existing papers on limited entry are included as well.
Limited entry perforating has been around for over 50 years; however, its effectiveness has been limited in
the horizontal revolution due to insufficient perforation friction relative to the variability in stress and near-
wellbore tortuosity found within a stage. This paper presents the improved results for specifically designing
perforations and stimulation injection rates to achieve diversion to almost all 15 perforation clusters per
stage. For this paper, we define XLE as completion designs with perforation friction exceeding 2,000 psi.
Since the beginning of 2015 we have reduced our standard stage count from 50 down to 27, for a 9,500-
ft lateral, while continuing to significantly outperform offset operators. When it comes to value creation,
the cost per barrel of oil produced is a critical metric to assess development opportunities and achieving the
same or increased oil production with less capital has led to significant gains in capital efficiency.
2 SPE-189880-MS
Introduction
From the first vertical oil well drilled in Pennsylvania over a hundred and fifty years ago, to the start of the
unconventional horizontal well revolution in the Barnett shale, there has been a steady pace of innovation.
From new basin exploration, to established basins being reinvigorated with modern drilling and completion
techniques, all our collective learnings have built upon past successes and failures. By asking "What's next?"
completion designs have been continually evolving. A review of published lab and field case studies, which
proved to be rich with insight, led to a redesign of our perforating strategy. The application of recently
developed even-hole perforating charges, engineered to create much tighter tolerance of perforation hole
diameters at all orientations, greatly reduced the largest source of variability when applying a limited entry
perforating design. Field calibration with pre- and post- proppant step-down analysis provide a robust
case study demonstrating the advantages of applying both a High-Density Perforating (HDP) and eXtreme
Limited Entry (XLE) design in cased and cemented wellbores. The authors previously presented the HDP
strategy of cementing the liner in place, perforating 15 clusters per stage, 2spf, 0-180 degree phasing with
even-hole charges and pumping high rate slickwater fracs at 80 bpm (Weddle et al. 2017).
Field diagnostic data from XLE field trials throughout our acreage position, and production data from
three wells done entirely with XLE will be will be presented and compared to internally derived statistical
expectations and offset wells. Diagnostic data from Well A, Well B and Well C as well as a few other wells
in the Williston Basin will be included as representative examples.
The underlying principles of what became known as Limited Entry (LE) were published in 1960 and
originally described as "pin-point sand fracturing" (Murphy and Juch, 1960). Through application of
radioactive proppant tracers, it was clearly shown that limiting the number of perforation holes in a stage
could more evenly distribute proppant laden fluid across thick interbedded shale and sandstone formations
of varying stress in Venezuela. Murphy and Juch demonstrated a dramatic increase in stimulation efficiency
and an equally dramatic increase in 1-year cumulative oil production compared to other completions in the
same field. Following up on their work, Lagrone and Rasmussen, also with Shell, published a workflow
and coined the term "Limited Entry Technique" and used the same principles to more effectively stimulate
stacked pay reservoirs in Texas and New Mexico (Lagrone and Rasmussen 1962 and 1963).
The most common form of the equation to calculate perforation friction, Ppf, for the design and application
of the limited entry design originated with the Bernoulli Theorem and the logic that the perforation tunnel is
a short cylindrical tunnel (McClain 1963, Bernoulli Theorem). Expressed in oilfield units below in Equation
1:
Equation 1
Ppf = Perforation Friction (psi)

ΔPp = Pressure drop across a perforation(s) (psi)
Q = Total flow rate (bbl/min)
ρ = Density of fluid (lb/gal)
Np = Number of open perforations
Dp = Diameter of perforations (in)
Cd = Coefficient of discharge
Due to perforation rounding and then diameter erosion that occurs when proppant laden fluid passes
through the perforations, several authors have documented the recommendation to increase the pump rate
during the job to maintain as much perforation friction as is operationally practical (Lagrone and Rasmussen
1963, Cramer 1987, Eberhard and Schlosser 1995, Somanchi et al. 2016). Lagrone and Rasmussen
summarized it by stating, "Best results are obtained by maintaining perforation friction at a maximum
during the treatment". A thorough guide to limited entry design and execution titled "The Application of
SPE-189880-MS 3
Limited Entry Techniques in Massive Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments" was published in 1987 (Cramer
1987) and is a great resource for those interested in a more in-depth review of the topic. The term "eXtreme
Limited Entry," was first published in 2017 (Somanchi et al. 2017) and is used by the authors to describe the
perforating design discussed in this paper where perforating friction is maximized within current operational
treating pressure limits.
eXtreme Limited Entry (XLE)
The eXtreme Limited Entry (XLE) technique, as the name suggest, pushes the level of perforation friction
well past the 1,500 psi Conway and Crump recommended for a "High differential pressure, limited-entry
design" published in 1988. At the time, the primary concerns were varying zonal stress states and perforation
issues (Cramer 1987, Crump and Conway 1988). Additional sources of pressure variations have been
identified and can be summed up as the fracture-entry pressure (Pfe). Fracture-entry pressure, defined as the
pressure from just outside the perforations to the fracture tip, includes, but is not limited to, near-wellbore
tortuosity, net-pressure, stress shadowing, and fracture extension (net pressure changes).
To advance the goal of evenly diverting stimulation fluid to all the fracture initiation points (clusters),
the designed perforation friction must moderate perforation/cluster level pressure variations in the fracture-
entry pressure. To achieve this, the magnitude of the various sources of variability should be quantified and
addressed with the completion and perforating design. On top of this, we must also account for the dynamic
fracturing process, where most of the fracture-entry pressure parameters, as well as, the perforations are
changing as the stimulation progresses.
Listed below are the primary sources of variability to be considered when designing for XLE:
1. Minimum horizontal stress variability along the lateral.
a. 90% of a Bakken lateral is within a 750 psi range.
2. Near-wellbore friction (Pnwb) variations stage to stage and perforation to perforation.
a. Step down tests demonstrate a P50 of 625 psi for starting Pnwb friction
3. Stress shadowing between active clusters.
a. The magnitude of stress shadowing is dependent on formation properties, completion design
parameters and cluster spacing. Assumed to be approximately 200 psi for design purposes.
4. Fracture extension pressure variability based on changes to net pressure.
a. The Initial and Final ISIP's are similar for the wells studied.
b. Minimal net pressure variability for this case.
5. Perforation friction initial condition variability may limit ability to get to design pump rate.
a. Perforation diameters at all possible orientations.
b. Number of perforations open vs. the number shot.
6. Perforation friction changes during a frac stage of approximately 500 psi due to:
a. Rounding and erosion of perforations.
b. Possible loss of clusters due to proppant settling in the liner.
For the Bakken, we target a minimum 2,000 psi perforation friction at the beginning of the job with the
expectation that as perforations round and erode this will still be above 1,500 psi at the end of pumping to
account for all the possible fracture-entry pressure variations. It should be noted that the 1,500 psi accounts
for "worst case" variations and combination of the identified parameters, especially the minimum horizontal
stress since a given stage usually has less variability than encountered along the entire lateral. Even pipe
4 SPE-189880-MS
friction is now considered in current XLE designs where smaller perforations are shot for the heel half of a
long lateral to maximize perforation friction as wellbore conditions allow.
Figure 1 introduces Injection Variability Index, this is the ratio of the baseline injection rate, with
zero fracture pressure variability between initiation points (clusters), to the injection rate associated with
variations in perforation friction at other initiation points intra-stage. As fracture-entry pressure varies, this
pressure variation is directly communicated as an equal pressure change across the perforations (Δpf), since
the pressure is constant inside the wellbore across all the clusters within a stage, the injection rate will
either increase or decrease at each cluster proportionally related to the perforation friction; the rate change
is magnified since it is squared relative to the pressure change (Ppf ∝ Q2). At a baseline 500 psi perforation
friction, a difference of +/− 375 psi fracture-entry pressure for different clusters in the same stage will give
injection rate differences of +32% to −50% at separate clusters. Alternatively, with 1,500 psi of perforation
friction, the same difference in fracture-entry pressure only translates to a difference of +12% to −13%
changes in the rate. With enough variability in fracture-entry pressure between clusters, individual cluster
rates can even drop to zero if the perforation friction is too low. Figure 1 clearly demonstrates the benefit
of applying an XLE perforating strategy, as the perforations of varying fracture-entry pressures converge
towards fluid distribution parity by increasing perforation friction.
Figure 1—Injection Variability Index, the ratio of the baseline injection rate, 0 psi variability in intra-stage fracture-
entry pressure, to the injection rate associated with variations in fracture-entry pressure at other entry points/clusters.
Lateral drilling data was acquired to determine the minimum horizontal stress variability along the
lateral, and Step-Down-Tests (SDT) (Wright 1997, Weijers et al. 2000) were performed to quantify the
near-wellbore friction (Pnwb), number of open perforations (Np) and perforation friction (Ppf). The SDT's
were performed both pre- and post-proppant and will be discussed in this paper. Stress shadowing has
been discussed in the literature and consistently concludes that increasing perforating friction counteracts
the presence of stress shadowing (Lecampion et al. 2015, Wu and Olson 2016, Huang et al. 2017). The
variability in fracture extension pressures as individual fractures grow and net pressure builds does not
appear to be a significant consideration for the Bakken formation. The difference in initial and final ISIP's
for Wells A, B and C was near zero on average. Only 4 of 84 stages analyzed exceeded a 300 psi net
pressure gain while only 3 of the 84 stages had a net pressure loss that exceeded 200 psi. It is a worthwhile
consideration because, as published by Eberhard and Schlosser in a case study on limited entry in the Codell
SPE-189880-MS 5
and Niobrara formations: "If the increase in net pressure is ignored, Ppf will be overcalculated by the net
pressure value…" (Eberhard and Schlosser 1995) but will not be further discussed in this paper.
Design Factors
Minimum Horizontal Stress Variability
Several drill bit geomechanics lateral data sets have been collected across our acreage for the Middle Bakken
(Haecker et al. 2017) and demonstrate a consistent magnitude of minimum horizontal stress variability.
Figure 2 is a histogram for the calculated minimum horizontal stress using the Poisson's ratio from drill bit
geomechanics lateral data and a given pore pressure along a 10,000’ Middle Bakken lateral. The amount
of minimum horizontal stress variability for any single stage will be dependent on how stratigraphically
flat that stage is relative to the total variability captured across the entire lateral and its proximity to key
bedding changes within the drillers target box.
Figure 2—Histogram of the minimum horizontal stress [psi] along a Middle Bakken horizontal wellbore.
Near-Wellbore Friction
Utilizing the SDT's, three Middle Bakken wells were selected to have full sets of pre- and post- proppant
step-down analysis. Well A, Well B and Well C had the pre- and post- proppant SDT's and initial and final
Pnwb for all stages analyzed are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3—Initial and final near-wellbore friction (Pnwb) from step down test for all applicable
stages in Well A, B & C. All data is shown as a cumulative distribution function and
the P50 values for the initial and final SDT's are shown in the bar chart on the right.
6 SPE-189880-MS
Stress Shadowing
In recent years there has been an increasing amount of dialog on the topic of stress shadowing, especially
in relation to the tighter cluster spacing being implemented by operators. Stress shadowing is not a focus
of this paper, but it is worth nothing that there is a growing set of published papers that demonstrate, with
fracture models, that increasing perforation friction can mitigate the effects of stress shadowing on intra-
stage frac geometry (Lecampion et al. 2015, Wu and Olson 2016, Huang et al. 2017). Barree thoroughly
discusses how stress shadowing is modeled within the GOHFER frac model and how the magnitude of the
realized stress shadow is dependent on many variables including; formation properties, formation continuity,
bedding planes, formation thickness, pore pressure, hydraulic fracture width and effective cluster spacing
(R. D. Barree 2015). Barree summarized the effect of a stress shadow as incremental minimum horizontal
stress "sensed" by the less dominate clusters. Given the complicated nature of calculating the stress shadow
for a given perforating and completion design it will not be discussed in depth, other than as a source of
stress variation that justifies the use of an XLE perforating strategy. Below in Figure 4 is one example that
has been published on the topic (Lecampion et al. 2015).
Figure 4—Lecampion et al. 2015, SPE-173363-MS. Fracture modeling cases demonstrating increased perforation
friction reduces the impact of stress shadowing on uneven fracture growth for multiple cluster per stage designs.
Perforation Friction Variability – Initial Perforation Diameter

The key source of variability in the perforating friction equation is the perforation diameter since it is raised
to the power of 4, while the other variables are only raised to the power of 2. Standard, conventional API
compliant charges, introduce a significant source of variability due to the perforation diameter variations
expected in horizontal applications as the perforating guns will be on the bottom of the wellbore and have
an asymmetric offset with the casing. This causes conventional charges to create significantly larger holes
on the low side of the pipe vs the high side. This variability can result in perforating friction for a given
hole as low as 67% and as high as 477% respectively, when compared to the designed perforating friction
and stated entry hole diameter in 5.5" casing (Cuthill et al. 2017). This example is shown in Figure 5. Even-
hole charges are engineered to greatly limit the entry hole variation and for our standard 4.5," 11.6 lb/ft,
P-110 horizontal liner at any orientation. Test data demonstrates an approximately 3% diameter variation
compared to the stated entry hole diameter and thus limits the variability in perforating friction to no more
than 122% and no lower than 91% relative to the stated entry hole diameter for our even-hole charge of
choice. To reliably achieve the targeted pump rate when applying XLE, using charges that provide consistent
entry hole at every orientation is critical.
SPE-189880-MS 7
Figure 5—Comparison of entry hole diameters and the resulting perforation friction impacts for various
phasing with even-hole and conventional charges. Images are from SPE-184878-MS (Cuthill et al. 2017).
Perforation Friction Variability – The Number of Perforations Open

The number of perforations open appears to be an under-worked part of the equation, where very little field
data has been presented that shows the number of holes open vs the number of holes perforated. This is
probably due to the assumptions that must be made for each of the variables in Equation 1, and because
Np is used as the variable changed to match the solution for a given set of assumptions. For instance, if
an erosion model is applied, the number of perforations calculated to be open will then change to match
the total perforation friction solution from the step-down analysis when honoring an increase in CD and
Dp from a given erosion model. If the erosion rate is lower than the erosion model applied; the number of
perforations calculated will be decreased to fit the solution. If the erosion rate is higher than the erosion
model applied; the number of perforations calculated to fit the solution will be increased to fit the solution
and in some cases, may exceed the total number of holes shot to begin with. Understanding this highlights
the need to calibrate erosion rates for a given wellbore configuration and completion design, but especially
when using an XLE strategy.
Cuthill et al. presented perforation hole efficiency of more than 80% in a case study with even-hole
charges where it is also noted that the operator pumped acid through the perforations prior to the pre-
proppant SDT was performed (Cuthill et al. 2017). Applying an 80% perforation hole efficiency would
result in a 56% increase in perforating friction compared to a case that assumed 100% of holes shot were
open. This is significant when XLE perforating designs call for greater than 2,000 psi of perforation friction
at 80 bpm. If the number of holes open was not accounted for, and 100% of perforations were assumed,
the resulting perforation friction would more than 50% higher (greater than 3,000 psi) if surface treating
pressure limitations allowed for the 80 bpm pump rate to still be reached. If XLE was being applied, the
base plan already expected to treat near maximum allowable surface treating pressures, thus an on the fly
design change would have to be made which would be to decrease the pump rate. For this case, it would
have to be dropped from the planned 80 bpm to 64 bpm to accommodate the far greater perforation friction
with only 80% of holes open.
Lagrone and Rasmussen originally recommended a "ball out" procedure utilizing ball sealers and acid
slugs to ensure all perforation holes were open prior to the start of the frac job (Lagrone and Rasmussen
1963). This was obviously more practical to perform in vertical wells with rat holes below the lowest
perforation where all the ball sealers could settle out. When applying XLE and an HDP perforating strategy
in a horizontal well, it is critical to account for the number of holes open with a consistent set of assumptions
to allow for reliable execution of the planned completion design.
8 SPE-189880-MS
Utilizing Step-Down Tests (SDT) with a fixed Cd and Dp for each stage in Well A, B and C, a dataset
of 84 stages was captured. The initial percentage of holes open from this data set is shown as a cumulative
distribution function in Figure 6. None of the stages in Well A, Well B and Well C had acid pads or
proppant scours. Currently, 75% percent of the perforations shot are assumed to be open when designing
XLE perforating for Bakken wells. Priority is given to reaching the target pump rate prior to pumping
proppant, which is highlighted in the data for stages with rates greater than 70 bpm, and shows a significant
increase in the P50 value for the percentage of perforations open.
Figure 6—Step down analysis for % of holes open for all applicable stages in Well A, B and C. Shown in
blue circles are the data points for all stages and shown in orange triangles are the data points for stages
that had initial rates greater than or equal to 70 bpm before the pre-proppant step down test was performed.
Perforation Friction Variability – Rounding and Erosion

Trends and critical variables on the rate of erosion have been shown in the lab (Crump and Conway 1988,
Willingham et al. 1993), as well as, in vertical wells (Cramer 1987, Eberhard and Schlosser 1995) and
recently discussed in a case study with horizontal wells (Somanchi et al. 2016). Conclusions from Conway
and Crump demonstrate the variables controlling the rate of rounding and erosion of the diameter of the
perforation hole are primarily related to; pipe hardness, proppant concentration, volume of proppant, initial
perforation diameter, differential pressure across the perforation hole and potential work hardening of the
liner depending on how perforations were created (drilled or jet perforated). Conway and Crump also state
that the Coefficient of Discharge changes quickly once proppant arrives at the perforations, and then the
perforation diameter begins to increase as erosion becomes the dominate action as an increasing amount of
proppant passes through a perforation. Field data presented for the DJ basin vertical well case study showed
an erosional equation for Hydraulic Perforation Diameter that lumped the rounding of the perforation holes
and the enlargement of the perforation diameter (Cramer 1987). In Figure 7, a perforating friction model is
shown that is useful in understanding the magnitude of change in perforating friction from an initial state
through perforation rounding and then erosion that will eventually occur as an increasing amount of proppant
passes through the perforation holes. This figure was created for the illustrative purpose of quantifying the
magnitude of change to Ppf from rounding, the CD variable changing, and erosion, the Cp variable changing,
in Equation 1. Figure 7 assumes 80 bpm and an initial diameter of 0.37 inches and initial coefficient of
discharge for the perforations of 0.75. CD changes initially, rising to 0.85 and then to 0.95 where it plateaus
as erosion is assumed to begin increasing the perforation diameter in 5% increments (1.05 × 0.37 in., 1.1 ×
0.37 in., …, 1.30 × 0.37 inches) until a 30% increase in the initial perforation diameter has been realized.
SPE-189880-MS 9
Figure 7—Perforation friction curves for initial parameters Q = 80 bpm, Cd = 0.75, Dp = 0.37 in. The various
curves assume changes to Cd and Dp due to rounding and then erosion. Cd starts at 0.75 then goes to 0.85 and
to a final value of 0.95 before the perforation diameter begins to increase due to erosion. Dp values are shown
with 5% increments diameter increases up to a final value representing a 30% increase to perforation diameter.
After reviewing published erosional rates and increases in perforation diameters, it is obvious a field
calibration would be beneficial for any given wellbore configuration, perforating and completion design:
• A linear erosional rate of 0.00418 inches per 1,000 lbs per perforation (when more than 10,000
lbs per perforation are pumped) was published by Cramer (Cramer 1987) for a given completion
design in a vertical well in the DJ Basin. Based on a 20,000 lbs per perforation completion design
presented, this would result in almost a 30% increase in perforation diameter (0.30 inches to 0.39
inches).
• A 27.7% increase in the perforation diameters was reported in a DJ Basin vertical well case study
(Eberhard and Schlosser 1995) that cited a range of erosional rates between 0.00376 to 0.0089
inches per 1,000 lbs depending on the proppant concentration.
• Research work presented by El Rabba (El-Rabba et al. 1999) concluded "…erosion is a complex
function of sand size, sand concentration, perforation diameter, carrier fluid viscosity, pumping
flow rate, and total time of pumping".
• Post-frac diameter increases of 33-35% due to erosion were recently published in a horizontal well
case study (Somanchi et al. 2016).
Field calibrations on Wells A, B and C demonstrated the ability to maintain greater than 1,500 psi of
perforating friction in a clear majority of the stages analyzed with SDT's. The SDT values for initial and
final perforating friction for all applicable stages are shown as both a cumulative distribution function and
P50 values in Figure 8. It is noteworthy that this would indicate the completion designs pumped in Well A,
B and C, only rounded the perforations and did not cause significant enlargement of Dp. There were very
few stages where substantial perforation diameter enlargement would have occurred to cause the change
between initial and final Ppf. Using the number of perforations open, Np, from the pre-proppant SDT and
the proppant volume placed; Well A averaged approximately 9,800 lbs/perf, Well B averaged 9,200 lbs/
perf, and Well C averaged 14,900 lbs/perf. The lack of significant diameter erosion is not totally unexpected
given the use of P-110 grade casing, lower average slurry proppant concentration in a slickwater completion
design, and the volume of proppant per perforation used in the completion designs of Wells A, B and C.
10 SPE-189880-MS
Figure 8—Initial and final perforation friction from step down test for all applicable
stages in Wells A, B & C. Data is shown as a cumulative distribution function and simple
bar chart of the P50 values for the initial (pre-proppant) and final (post-proppant).
Field Trials and Diagnostics
RA Tracer Data – Initial 4 Stage XLE Trial

Radioactive (RA) tracer data was used for downhole diagnostics of perforation cluster efficiency (PCE) in
early field trials of XLE in January 2016. Four stages were chosen to apply extreme values of limited entry
that ranged from 2,000 psi to well over 4,000 psi. The PCE for these four stages are compared in Figure
9 to all other stages traced in the same wellbore. The PCE for each proppant ramp and the final PCE was
calculated using the same quantitative method published and discussed in SPE 184828 (Weddle et al. 2017).
The stages with XLE showed much higher initial PCE than non-XLE stages that had less than 1,000 psi of
perforation friction. The authors believe this is a significant finding in that it indicates early and continuous
PCE throughout a stage without the use of solid particulate diverters even though the use of solid particulate
diverters did increase the final PCE of the non-XLE stages significantly by the end of the stages traced.
"Well X" used in Figure 9, demonstrated significant uplift compared to offset operators as published in the
original "Mining the Bakken" SPE paper (Weddle et al. 2017).
Figure 9—Perforation cluster efficiency (PCE) comparing stages with XLE vs non-XLE stages for Well X.
SPE-189880-MS 11
RA Tracer Data – Well A

Radioactive (RA) tracer data was used for downhole diagnostics in Well A. PCE was calculated using the
same quantitative method published and discussed in SPE 184828 (Weddle et al. 2017). The stage shown
in Figure 10, an RA tracer log, calculated a PCE of 87%, or 13 of 15 clusters shot. Figure 11 shows the
treating plot for the same stage. The PCE for all stages traced in Well A averaged 77%, but it is worth noting
that cluster count per stage was varied in multiple stages that were traced so not all of them had 15 clusters.
The initial perforation friction for the stage shown in Well A was approximately 2,000 psi, and the final
perforating friction was approximately 1,900 psi. Well A was the first full wellbore designed with XLE
perforating for every stage and the designed pump rate of 80 bpm could not be achieved on most stages
until the perforation scheme was altered to include a few incremental clusters per stage. This is believed to
have lowered our PCE, especially when compared to Well B, likely due to proppant transport issues in the
liner that caused clusters to be lost due to proppant settling in the liner.
Figure 10—RA Tracer log for stage 5 in Well A. All stages were designed to use XLE. PCE of 87%
calculated for this stage, 13 of 15 cluster shot. PCE for all stages traced in Well A averaged 77%.
Figure 11—Treating plot for Stage 5 in Well A.

12 SPE-189880-MS
RA Tracer Data – Well B

Radioactive (RA) tracer data was used for downhole diagnostics in Well B, and PCE was calculated in the
same manner as previously discussed. The stage shown in Figure 12, and RA tracer log, calculated a PCE
of 87%, or 13 of 15 clusters shot. Figure 13 shows the treating plot for the same stage. This stage shows
indication of a leaking plug as well where the top few clusters from the prior stage showed significant RA
tracer counts. The PCE for all stages traced in Well B averaged 89%, but it is worth noting that cluster
count per stage was varied in multiple stages that were traced so not all stages had 15 clusters. The initial
perforation friction for the stage shown in Well B was approximately 2,200 psi, and the final perforating
friction was approximately 1,400 psi. The more significant drop in perforating friction in this stage may
be due to erosion of the perforation diameters, but is more likely from the leaking plug exposing clusters
from the stage below.
Figure 12—RA Tracer log for a stage 3 in Well B. All stages were designed to use XLE. PCE of 87%
calculated for this stage, 13 of 15 cluster shot. PCE for all stages traced in Well B averaged 89%.
Figure 13—Treating plot for Stage 3 in Well B.

SPE-189880-MS 13
Post-Frac Fiber Optic Warm-Back and Production Log

Post-frac fiber optic diagnostics were used in two wells, a Middle Bakken and a Three Forks, in June of 2017.
A composite carbon rod with fiber optic strands inside of it was deployed to log both distributed temperature
sensing (DTS) and distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) during producing and shut in well conditions. A
warm-back analysis was performed using the DTS data to analyze the frac fluid distribution within each
stage and is shown below in Figure 14. The warm-back analysis demonstrated a consistent distribution of
fluid as binned by thirds within each stage. This well had either 12 or 15 clusters per stages, so each intra-
stage bin contained 4 or 5 clusters. The same proppant per stage was pumped, so the stages with 12 clusters
had 25% more proppant per cluster.
Figure 14—Frac fluid allocation based on warm-back analysis with Distributed Temperature Sensing data post-frac. In this
figure a [bbl/ft/cluster] metric is shown per bin to analyze the data given some stages have 12 clusters and others have 15.
Another way to look at the data from the previous figure is with a box and whisker style plot shown in
Figure 15. The box is defined by the middle two quartiles of data, with the median included as a line within
the box, and the whiskers representing the maximum and minimum. In this figure, the three intra-stage bins
are plotted using the percentage of fluid used in each stage to depict how even the frac fluid was distributed
within each bin across all full stages logged (Stages 4-13 from Figure 14).
Figure 15—Comparison of intra-stage frac fluid distribution from DTS warm-back analysis.
14 SPE-189880-MS
Production log analysis was performed after the shut-in period required for the warm-back:
• A DAS ranking system was implemented as a constraint into the temperature model to converge
on a more probable solution, mitigating uncertainty in the interpretation of the DTS in a horizontal
wellbore.
• Higher frequency noise power is aggregated over time, creating a qualitative production allocation
for each cluster.
• DAS obtained with DTS provides a unique description of the wellbore flow profile.
The results of this production log analysis are shown for a single stage in Figure 16. Of note, both Figure
14 and Figure 16 are from the same Middle Bakken well, and was one of two wells in this diagnostic project.
The two well average for producing cluster efficiency was 80% for the 20 complete stages logged and
analyzed. The Middle Bakken stage shown below indicates 14 of 15 clusters were producing in this stage
for a single stage producing PCE of 93%.
Figure 16—Post-frac production log evaluation using DAS and DTS. Stage shown is from
a Middle Bakken, but not in Well A, B or C. This stage shows 14 of 15 clusters producing.
Gas-Oil Ratio History Matching

Reservoir modeling of the gas-oil ratio (GOR) behavior as a diagnostic tool is another way to determine
effective producing cluster spacing for a black oil reservoir initially producing above the bubble point.
Assumptions on individual cluster frac geometry are required inputs into the model and warrant a multi-
disciplinary discussion prior to executing and evaluating field trials like the ones presented in this paper. By
leveraging an understanding of GOR behavior in a tight oil reservoir, a reservoir model was created, and
history matched to determine producing cluster efficiency. As published by Jones (Jones 2016), depletion
of an unconventional oil reservoir drives the timing of a GOR increase and effective cluster spacing drives
rate acceleration assuming the same frac geometry for each cluster is the same. The reservoir model in
Figure 17 was run at several cluster efficiencies to find the best history match and the GOR forecasts along
with the actual data from the flowing life of a representative well is shown. For this well we found our best
history match (HM) followed the 67% cluster efficiency trend during its naturally flowing period. Of note,
this well had an earlier generation completion design that did not utilize XLE or even-hole charges but did
include solid particulate diverter. Ongoing reservoir modeling work is planned to evaluate later generations
of completion design that incorporated XLE and HDP designs.
SPE-189880-MS 15
Figure 17—History matching sensitivity for determination of producing perforation cluster
efficiency. January 2015 Completion design (Solid particulate diverter, 35 stages, not even-hole
charges and not applying XLE) with 15 clusters per stage shot and a history match with a 67%
producing cluster efficiency (approximately 10 clusters per stage) producing after 9 months flowing.
Production Results
For the Williston Basin, a 180-day cumulative oil volume is a generally accepted production metric useful
for comparative analysis, and it correlates with longer term cumulative production after three years (Griffin
et al. 2013). Well A and Well B had more than a year of production data and Well C was approaching 180
days of production data at the time of writing, and are shown below. All three wells are Middle Bakken wells
and the bubble map for each offset operator comparison is based on an area of similar geologic properties
and structure.
Based on previously published multi-variate workflows that utilize the NDIC public data base of
completion parameters and production data (Pearson et al. 2013, Griffin et al. 2013, Lolon et al. 2016) and
similarly to how Well X and Well Y were published previously by the authors in the original "Mining the
Bakken" paper (Weddle et al. 2017), expectations for productivity in each geologically similar area and for
a given completion design were determined. With that in mind, Figure 18 for Well A, Figure 19 for Well
B and Figure 20 for Well C, show an offset operator comparison and a comparison of actual results to the
pre-drill expectations in a stacked bar chart for each well respectively. The operator averages shown in the
graphs and on the maps as individual well bubbles for each. Cluster level data and the use of diverter is
not reported to the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC), and thus are not publicly available as
inputs into the multi-variate analysis. The overall results to date have exceeded expectations, with Well A
exceeding expectations by 9% and the next highest performing offset operator by a 1.7 multiple, Well B
exceeding expectations by 13% and the next highest performing offset operator by a 2.5 multiple, and Well
C exceeding expectations by 14% and the next highest performing offset operator by a 1.7 multiple. The
authors believe these positive results are proof of a dramatic increase in the number of effective clusters
by successfully applying an HDP strategy with XLE. Of note, in the original "Mining the Bakken" paper
(Weddle et al. 2017) the max treating rate was not a parameter in the multi-variate analysis due to lack
of existing completions performed with a significant range of max treating rates. In this case study the
max treating rate parameter was indeed a significant variable which would increase the perforating friction
for any given perforating design and align with our conclusion that maximizing perforating friction will
increase PCE and drive productivity increases in all plug and perf completion designs.
16 SPE-189880-MS
Figure 18—Offset operator production comparison of Well A to offset operators, Op. 1, 2 and 3. Including a 180-day cumulative
oil per lateral length bar chart, Average cumulative oil per foot by Operator and a 365-day cumulative oil bubble map.
Figure 19—Offset operator production comparison of Well B to offset operators, Op. 1, 2 and 3. Including a 180-day cumulative
oil per lateral length bar chart, Average cumulative oil per foot by Operator and a 365-day cumulative oil bubble map.
Figure 20—Offset operator production comparison of Well C to offset operators,

Op. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Including a 180-day cumulative oil per lateral length bar chart,
Average cumulative oil per foot by Operator and a 180-day cumulative oil bubble map.
Considerations
Shifting Frac Plugs
In a few unique cases involving the crossing of existing producing horizontal wellbores with new wells frac
plug ratings have been exceeded in the field and caused plugs to fail. This is obviously negative for stage
isolation and treating the desired perforations. In these cases, a quick field check is now performed to limit
SPE-189880-MS 17
this occurrence; wellhead opening pressures and calculated bottom hole treating pressures are now used to
guide the rate of increase in the pumping rate so that the frac plug differential is not exceeded. Limiting
the pace at which we increase pumping rate has allowed us to still achieve our designed pump rate without
shifting frac plugs early in the first proppant ramp. In limited instances, we could not achieve desired pump
rate by the time proppant was hitting the perforations, but the authors believe this is a better outcome than
a frac plug shifting during a frac stage.
Proppant Transport
Discussed previously by the authors (Weddle et al. 2017), "Proppant transport is an important design
consideration when applying and evaluating perforating cluster efficiency, proppant transport in the lateral
is one of the possible explanations for why toe clusters in any given stage may not be effective. The topic
is thoroughly discussed in several papers (Shah 1990, Jain 2013, Bokane 2013). For a slickwater treatment
in 11.6 lb/ft, 4.5" pipe, Shah (Shah 1990) showed that approximately 6.4 bpm provides the critical velocity
at which proppant will begin settling out. While 6.4 bpm is well below the rate most of the clusters will see
downhole, the last few toe side clusters in an HDP stage may be susceptible to approaching or falling below
this rate. When that happens, the toe clusters may be quickly covered up and blocked by settled proppant."
Oriented Perforating
Recent trials, not discussed in this paper, indicate some benefit from orienting 0-180 perforations up and
down in the wellbore. This is consistent with the idea of even-hole perforating charges in that it should make
the pressure response more consistent for a given completion and perforating design by eliminating another
possible source of variability caused by hoop stresses and near-wellbore tortuosity associated the various
phasing that could occur without orientation. Simple weight bar orientation with on the fly perforating
warrant continued data collection for statistical evaluation of the impact to the XLE and HDP design
discussed.
Variable Wellbore Friction

There are several drivers of wellbore friction changes, but it is primarily driven by lateral length and
the concentration of friction reducer pumped. While applying an XLE strategy these are both operational
considerations to discuss when designing the perforating plan. To maximize perforating friction for each
stage, as wellbore friction drops from the toe to the heel stages, one methodology is to shoot smaller diameter
holes once wellbore friction has reduced enough to accommodate the extra perforating friction. A simpler
method is to increase pump rate, but horsepower limitations do not always allow for this flexibility and
it almost certainly comes at an increased cost. Either way, as operators increase lateral length to create
economic uplift to their drilling inventory, pipe friction will be a significant portion of the total friction
present with fracturing. Total friction while fracturing is a sum of: pipe friction, perforating friction and
near-wellbore friction. An example of this would be a 3-mile lateral with a measured depth of 25,000 ft., a 7"
intermediate casing string and a 4.5" liner in the lateral where stage 1 would have 2,250 psi of pipe friction
with an 80 bpm slickwater. In the same scenario, but at 20,000 ft., pipe friction would be approximately
1,500 psi, and at 15,000 ft. pipe friction would be approximately 750 psi.
Solid Particle Diverters and XLE

As previously published by the authors (Weddle et al. 2017), solid particle diverters have been demonstrated
to drive higher PCE as well. Both solid particle diverters and XLE have been successfully used in lower
pressure portions of the field discussed, but the focus of this paper is only on wells with just an XLE
perforating strategy. SDT analysis can become much less unique when making assumptions on how solid
particle diverter should be incorporated into the analysis and calibration of an XLE perforating strategy.
18 SPE-189880-MS
Of note, the combination of both techniques has been used with success in infill well completions and will
continue to be trialed and studied to evolve the application of both diversion techniques.
Conclusions
Application of eXtreme Limited Entry (XLE) diversion can consistently increase the perforation cluster
efficiency (PCE) of a high-density perforating (HDP) design. Production results to date have also shown a
consistent increase in productivity, reserves, and capital efficiency. Summary observations include:
• Multiple diagnostic data sets demonstrate the success of XLE in driving a high PCE early and
throughout a frac treatment.
• The Injection Variability Index plot (Figure 1) visually demonstrates the principle behind XLE.
The injection rate through the perforations is squared relative to the pressure change (Ppf ∝ Q2).
As fracture-entry pressure varies, this pressure variation is directly communicated as an equal
pressure change across the perforations (ΔPfe = ΔPpf). Increasing the perforation friction counteracts
variations in fracture-entry pressures; as the perf friction increases the fluid distribution to the perfs
converge.
• The amount of entry hole rounding and erosion found in the wells studied indicates a slower erosion
rate than other case studies reviewed, and is attributed to the P-110 grade of casing, lower average
slurry proppant concentration in a slickwater completion design, and the volume of proppant per
perforation used in the completion design.
• Even-hole perforation charges and field calibration of the number of perforations open are critical
to consistently achieve the designed pump rate when applying an XLE perforating design.
• Producing PCE has been demonstrated at 80%, and thus 12 of 15 clusters per stages are contributing
to production with the XLE perforating strategy discussed.
• If the number of effective clusters for each well is known, the stage count can be right sized based
on PCE expectations for a given completion and perforation strategy. Finding and development
costs [$/bbl] can be lowered by reducing completion costs and increasing productivity together.
◦ The wells presented realized a 15% reduction in finding and development costs [$/bbl].
◦ The wells presented have produced 170% to 250% more than offset operators in the same
number of producing days.
• Multi-variate analysis is a powerful tool to set expectations for well results and identify the relative
influence variables in the data set have on production outcomes. By reviewing engineering details
down to the perforation, which is below the granularity of the multi-variate data set, significant
value uplift over expectations can be consistently demonstrated.
• The use of an XLE perforating strategy does not preclude the use of other diversion techniques,
but should be included as part of a holistic approach to maximizing PCE and well productivity.
• Drilling in the same lithology and lumping "like-rock" by stages reduces the minimum horizontal
stress variability within each stage.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank their co-workers at Liberty Resources who helped with the preparation
and review of this paper, especially Stacy Strickland for her multi-variate analysis and technical support.
A special thanks to the technical team at Liberty Oilfield Services for the reservoir modeling and technical
support throughout our past and ongoing field trials. We would also like to thank our service providers
for being very responsive throughout our ongoing completion evolution; Liberty Oilfield Services, PerfX
Wireline, Geodynamics, Ziebel and Protechnics.
SPE-189880-MS 19
Nomenclature
Ppf = Perforation Friction (psi)
ΔPp = Pressure drop across a perforation(s) (psi)
Q= Total flow rate (bbl/min)
ρ= Density of fluid (lb/gal)
Np = Number of open perforations
Dp = Diameter of perforations (in)
Cd = Coefficient of discharge
Pfe = Fracture-entry pressure (psi)
Pnwb = Near-wellbore friction (psi)
XLE = eXtreme Limited Entry
HDP = High Density Perforating
PCE = Perforation Cluster Efficiency
SDT = Step Down Test
References
1. Bokane, A. B., Jain, S., Deshpande, Y. K., & Crespo, F. (2013, September 30). Transport and
Distribution of Proppant in Multistage Fractured Horizontal Wells: A CFD Simulation Approach.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/166096-MS
2. Cramer, D. D. (1987, January 1). The Application of Limited-Entry Techniques in Massive
Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/16189-MS
3. Crump, J. B., & Conway, M. W. (1988, August 1). Effects of Perforation-Entry Friction on
Bottomhole Treating Analysis. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/15474-PA
4. Cuthill, D., Yang, W., & Hardesty, J. (2017, January 24). Improved Hydraulic Fracturing
Perforation Efficiency Observed with Constant Entry Hole and Constant Penetration Perforating
System. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/184878-MS
5. Eberhard, M. J., & Schlosser, D. E. (1995, January 1). Current Use of Limited-Entry Hydraulic
Fracturing in the Codell/Niobrara Formations-DJ Basin. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/29553-MS
6. El-Rabba, A. M., Shah, S. N., & Lord, D. L. (1999, February 1). New Perforation Pressure-
Loss Correlations for Limited-Entry Fracturing Treatments. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/54533-PA
7. Griffin, L. G., Pearson, C. M., Strickland, S., McChesney, J., Wright, C. A., Mayer, J., Coleman,
B., Roth, M., Weijers, L. (2013, September 30). The Value Proposition for Applying Advanced
Completion and Stimulation Designs to the Bakken Central Basin. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/166479-MS
8. Haecker A., Lakings J., Marshall E., Ulla J. (2017, June 17-21). A Novel Technique for
Measuring (Not Calculating) Young's Modulus, Poisson's Ratio and Fractures Downhole:
A Bakken Case Study. Presented at the SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium held in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, June 17-21, 2017.
9. Huang, J., Datta-Gupta, A., & Augustine, J. R. (2017, March 27). Optimization of Hydraulic
Fracture Development and Well Performance Using Limited Entry Perforations. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/185093-MS
10. Jain, S., Soliman, M., Bokane, A., Crespo, F., Deshpande, Y., Kunnath Aven, N., & Cortez, J.
(2013, February 4). Proppant Distribution in Multistage Hydraulic Fractured Wells: A Large-
Scale Inside-Casing Investigation. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/163856-MS
20 SPE-189880-MS
11. Jones, R. S. (2016, August 1). Producing Gas-Oil Ratio Behavior of Tight Oil Reservoirs.
Unconventional Resources Technology Conference. doi:10.15530/URTEC-2016-2460396
12. Weijers,L. Wright, C.A. Minner, W.A. Pinnacle Technologies Inc.; Molesworth,G. Chevron
U.S.A. Production Company; Huckabee,P. Shell Technology EP; Roberts,G. Santos Ltd. (2000,
Western Regional Conference in Long Beach, California, U.S.A).: The rate step-down test: a
simple real-time procedure to diagnose potential hydraulic fracture treatment problems. SPE
62549
13. Lagrone, K. W., & Rasmussen, J. W. (1962, January 1). Better Completion by Controlled
Fracture Placement Limited-entry Technique. American Petroleum Institute.
14. Lagrone, K. W., & Rasmussen, J. W. (1963, May 27). A New Development in Completion
Methods- The Limited Entry Technique. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi :10.2118/530-PA
15. Lecampion, B., Desroches, J., Weng, X., Burghardt, J., & Brown, J. E. (2015, February 3). Can
We Engineer Better Multistage Horizontal Completions? Evidence of the Importance of Near-
Wellbore Fracture Geometry from Theory, Lab and Field Experiments. Society of Petroleum
16. Lolon, E., Hamidieh, K., Weijers, L., Mayerhofer, M., Melcher, H., & Oduba, O. (2016, February
1). Evaluating the Relationship Between Well Parameters and Production Using Multivariate
Statistical Models: A Middle Bakken and Three Forks Case History. Society of Petroleum
17. McClain, C.: Fluid Flow in Pipes, New York, New York, USA, The Industrial Press (1963),
117–128.
18. Murphy, W. B., & Juch, A. H. (1960, November 1). Pin-Point Sandfracturing - A Method of
Simultaneous Injection into Selected Sands. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/1415-G
19. North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) website: https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/.
20. Pearson, C. M., Griffin, L., Wright, C. A., & Weijers, L. (2013, February 4). Breaking Up is
Hard to Do: Creating Hydraulic Fracture Complexity in the Bakken Central Basin. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/163827-MS
21. Barree.R. D. (2015, May) Stress Shadowing and Fracture Interference in GOHFER
22. Shah, S. N., & Lord, D. L. (1990, September 1). Hydraulic Fracturing Slurry Transport in
Horizontal Pipes. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/18994-PA
23. Somanchi, K., O'Brien, C., Huckabee, P., & Ugueto, G. (2016, August 1). Insights and
Observations into Limited Entry Perforation Dynamics from Fiber-Optic Diagnostics.
Unconventional Resources Technology Conference. doi:10.15530/URTEC-2016-2458389
24. Somanchi, K., Brewer, J., & Reynolds, A. (2017, January 24). Extreme Limited Entry Design
Improves Distribution Efficiency in Plug-n-Perf Completions: Insights from Fiber-Optic
Diagnostics. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/184834-MS
25. Weddle, P., Griffin, L., & Pearson, C. M. (2017, January 24). Mining the Bakken: Driving
Cluster Efficiency Higher Using Particulate Diverters. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/184828-MS
26. Willingham, J. D., Tan, H. C., & Norman, L. R. (1993, January 1). Perforation Friction Pressure
of Fracturing Fluid Slurries. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/25891-MS
27. Wright, C.A.: "On-Site, Step-Down Test Analysis Diagnoses Problems and Improves Fractures
Treatment Success," Hart's Petroleum Engineer International, Jan. 1997, P.51
28. Wu, K., & Olson, J. E. (2016, June 1). Mechanisms of Simultaneous Hydraulic-Fracture
Propagation from Multiple Perforation Clusters in Horizontal Wells. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/178925-PA

Spe 189880 Ms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Spe 189880 Ms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spe 189880 Ms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE-189880-MS

Paul Weddle, Larry Griffin, and C. Mark Pearson, Liberty Resources

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Ppf = Perforation Friction (psi)

Perforation Friction Variability – Initial Perforation Diameter

Perforation Friction Variability – The Number of Perforations Open

Perforation Friction Variability – Rounding and Erosion

Field Trials and Diagnostics

RA Tracer Data – Initial 4 Stage XLE Trial

RA Tracer Data – Well A

Figure 11—Treating plot for Stage 5 in Well A.

RA Tracer Data – Well B

Figure 13—Treating plot for Stage 3 in Well B.

Post-Frac Fiber Optic Warm-Back and Production Log

Gas-Oil Ratio History Matching

Figure 20—Offset operator production comparison of Well C to offset operators,

Variable Wellbore Friction

Solid Particle Diverters and XLE

You might also like