Spe 179124 Ms

SPE-179124-MS
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEHFTC/proceedings-pdf/16HFTC/2-16HFTC/D021S006R002/1394474/spe-179124-ms.pdf/1 by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, JT Univ on 08 January 2024
Perforation Cluster Efficiency of Cemented Plug and Perf Limited Entry
Completions; Insights from Fiber Optics Diagnostics
Gustavo A. Ugueto C., Paul T. Huckabee, Mathieu M. Molenaar, Brendan Wyker, and Kiran Somanchi, Shell
Exploration and Production
Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 9 –11 February 2016.
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
It is now well established that the production from horizontal wells completed via hydraulic fracture
stimulations (fracs) is highly variable along the length of the wellbore. In addition to subsurface
conditions, elements of the completion design, such as fluid volume, proppant tonnage, rate, stage length,
the number of perforation clusters and their spacing, influence the performance of individual stimulated
intervals and wells. Information about completion efficiency can be obtained using Fiber Optic (FO)
diagnostics. Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS) and Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) provide
great insights into the factors controlling frac construction and performance of each perforation cluster.
The integrated analysis of DAS and DTS in horizontal wells completed with multiple perforation clusters
per stage indicate that, although most perforation clusters receive fluids during the stimulation, there are
significant changes in efficiency during the frac stimulation process that can impact frac connectivity,
conductivity and ultimately, their production. This presentation illustrates recent observations about
Perforation Cluster Efficiency (PCE) using FO diagnostics and summarizes the results for many wells
with Cemented Plug and Perforated completions Limited Entry design (CPnP LE).
Introduction
Diagnostics have always played an important role in understanding the efficiency of hydraulic fracturing.
The information obtained from logs not only provides data about the properties of the rocks being
stimulated but also evidence that can help improve the design of hydraulic fracturing. The first papers
published on Limited Entry in the early 1960’s described both the new emerging completion technique
and the role that diagnostics, such as radioactive proppant tracers with GR logging and temperature
logging, played in discovering that significant portions of the reservoir were not effectively stimulated.
The same diagnostics were later also used to confirm that applying Limited Entry extended fracturing of
the stimulated interval beyond the few feet of perforated sections.
Fiber Optics (FO) can provide information not easily obtainable by other means. A single cable
installation behind casing incorporating several fibers can provide multiple types of measurements and
applications throughout the life cycle of the well: casing, cementing, stimulation and production.
Interpretation of Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) and Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS) has
2 SPE-179124-MS
been used to analyze stimulation efficiency during frac placement. Many examples now exist in literature
indicating that some perforation clusters do not show consistent temperature and acoustic energy during
the overall treatment. This has been interpreted as representing uneven placement of the treatment in
stages with multiple perforation clusters. Similarly, interpretation of Production Logs indicates that many
intervals produced nothing or very little and in many horizontal wells with many stages and hundreds of
perforation clusters, the great majority of production comes from few clusters. The use of integrated
diagnostics opens the possibility of better understanding the complex interaction between subsurface,
well, completion design, and execution. Particularly the information derived from DAS and DTS allow
monitoring of frac operations, frac placement, and production. The information derived from such
measures offers a more comprehensive understanding of frac efficiency in long horizontal wells com-
pleted with multi-entry cemented plug and perforated stages designed using Limited Entry technique
(CPnP LE).
In the 1960’s when Limited Entry was first introduced, the objective of stimulation remained the same;
⬙The basic objective of all well treatment is to get the best stimulation compatible with cost⬙ (Murphy and
Juch, 1960). Using modern diagnostics we can now quantify the inefficiencies of the current completion
systems being used to develop unconventional resources and understand some of the underlying mech-
anisms controlling their inefficiencies. DAS and DTS in particular are helping us to eliminate some of the
⬙mysteries⬙ and ⬙myths⬙ surrounding hydraulic frac stimulation. In addition, using FO and other diag-
nostics offer a more efficient and cost effective alternative to ⬙trial-and-error⬙ methods as a way to test
completion design and evaluate new completion technology. Let us build from these emerging diagnostics
and apply the same approaches to improve completion efficiency that have served us well in the past.
Limited Entry
The principles of Limited Entry (LE) design was first documented by Murphy and Juch in Lake
Maracaibo, Venezuela by Shell in 1960 (Murphy and Juch, 1960). The target completion interval spanned
between 50ft (~15m) – 1000ft (~30m) of gross section of interbedded shale and fine to medium grained
consolidated Eocene sandstones of the Lagunillas and Tia Juana Fields. The net sand was approximately
50%, and the net permeable thickness to gross interval was only 30% (net-oil-sand). Prior completions for
the same formation utilized a pre-perforated liner with four holes per foot across the net-oil-sand to
maximize reservoir contact with minimal inflow pressure drop through the perforations. Radioactive
tracer diagnostics validated concerns about poor stimulation distributions over the long oil-bearing
intervals. Observation from the diagnostics led to development of a technique for stimulating the same
total interval with a limited number of perforations termed ⬙Pin-Point Sandfracturing⬙. This technique
resulted in reduced completion cost (reduction of perforation cost of around 70%) and increased average
production rate of 95% relative to the prior completions 12 months after stimulation. The first reference
to the term LE, and the first documented design process for simultaneous treatment of multiple porous
intervals with different bottom hole fracture pressures was presented by Shells’ Lagrone and Rasmussen
based on their experience stimulating a variety of reservoirs in Texas and New Mexico (Lagrone and
Rasmussen, 1962 and 1963). They stated ⬙treating pressure must be raised above the fracture initiation
pressure of each successive zone to be treated. This can be accomplished by limiting the number and
diameter of the perforations in the casing⬙. The design process used by Lagrone and Rasmussen utilized
empirical laboratory measured pressure differentials across perforations, generated by Halliburton. They
recommended that the treating pressure needed to be raised above the fracture initiation pressure to
⬙break-down⬙ each target interval. However, it is important to recognize that to maintain fracture
extension in each target interval, the treating pressure must exceed the fracture extension pressure
throughout the treatment. They also recommended increasing rate during the treatment. Lagrone and
Rasmussen stated that ⬙Best results are obtained by maintaining perforation friction at a maximum during
SPE-179124-MS 3
the treatment⬙. Equation 1 describes the relationship of a perforation friction Ppf use for limited entry
design consideration (Willingham et.al. 1993).
⫽ Total flow rate(bbl/min)
Q
␳ ⫽ Density of fluid (lb/gal)
Np ⫽ Number of perforations
D ⫽ Diamater of perforations (in)
Cd ⫽ Coefficeit of discharge
It is clear from Equation 1 that some combination of increasing rate and/or reducing number of
perforations or size of perforations are all critical design parameters. It is important to understand that
none of these parameters are constant and will likely change throughout the treatment as treating pressures
and proppant slurries interact with the perforated completion. This requires designing the wellbore to
enable treating pressure margins as we progress through such variable treatment conditions. Once
perforations are selected and in place, effective LE often requires dynamic injection rate adjustments to
optimize the LE distribution throughout the stimulation placement process. Prior to proppant slurry
erosion, rates may need to be reduced below planned treatment rates to stay within maximum treatment
pressure constraints during the initial fracture breakdown process. As additional perforation clusters (PCs)
are added through the breakdown process, and as perforation erosion occurs with slurry placement (Cd and
D increase), treatment injection rate will likely need to be increased to maintain sufficient Pdf for effective
LE distribution. Figure 1 shows an example of interplay of factors controlling perforation friction pressure
(Ppf). In this example the formation being stimulated is expected to require 700 psi to maintain effective
stimulation distribution. The stage consists of four PCs with 9 perforations per cluster at 60° phasing.
Perforations have an average diameter of 0.39 inches. The total number of perforations is 36 and injection
rate is designed for 75 BPM.
4 SPE-179124-MS
Figure 1—Graph of Perforation Friction (Ppf) vs. Number of Open Perforations (Np) and assuming constant Rate (Q) 75 bbl/min, Hole
Diameter (D) 0.39 inches and Coefficient of Discharge (Cd) ranging between 0.50 and 0.95. This example corresponds to a stage with
4 perforations clusters and 36 holes in total. Initially the Perforation Friction (Ppf) decreases from Point 1 to a value above fracture
propagation pressure (red line) to value below when Coefficient of Discharge (Cd) changes 0.50 to around 0.90 during stimulation
(yellow arrow) Point 2. Loss of a cluster lead to reduce number of open perforations (Npⴝ27) and increase of Perforation Friction (black
arrow) Point 3.
If we initially assume that all 36 perforations are open with a typical Cd of 0.5 to 0.6, prior to proppant
slurry, the resulting Ppf should be sufficient to propagate fractures across all the clusters. However, as the
perforations are eroded from the proppant slurry and Cd transitions to the 0.85 to 0.95 range, it is likely
that we no longer have effective LE across all the perforations. These conditions are illustrated graphically
in Figure 1. Changes in Cd can make Ppf fall below the fracture propagation pressure of 700 psi (red
dashed line). The pre-slurry conditions are indicated by the yellow dot (Point 1), and the transition to
slurry erosion conditions are indicated by the yellow arrow to Point 2. Furthermore, if as a result of
changes in Cd an entire cluster will stop propagating, the number of perforations will drop to 27, at 75
bbl/min. Then Ppf will increase to greater than 700 psi and the opportunity to ⬙reconnect⬙ to the dropped
perforation cluster is possible (Point 3). In this situation, an intermittent placement into the dropped
perforation cluster may occur (black double arrow line in the figure). Under such circumstances, there is
a risk that the unstable, intermittent connections to the cluster with slurry will likely result in the
screen-out of that PC. This simple example helps illustrate some of the complex interactions of the design
parameters and operational practices associated with limited entry design and execution. The following
sections show the knowledge that can be gained by using FO diagnostics to understand the frac
stimulation in multi-entry stages designed using the LE technique.
SPE-179124-MS 5
Perforation Cluster Efficiency

Different diagnostics provide separate and sometime unrelated assessments of PC efficiency. DAS and
DTS allow gaining information about frac placement, frac geometry and production. This information can
help answer two fundamental questions related to the development of unconventional resources: ⬙Did the
interval receive the intended treatment?⬙ and ⬙Did the interval produce as expected?⬙. The next sections
show examples of DAS and DTS results, the insights gained and the quantitative analysis performed for
a typical well and for a particular stage in the same well (Stage 11). This is followed by summary results
for a larger number of wells instrumented with FO behind casing and with comparable CPnP LE design.
PC Efficiency - Stage and Perforation Cluster Isolation Implications

Controlled placement of the fracs along the wellbore is essential if other aspects of the stimulation are to
be fully understood. FO diagnostics can be used to determine if isolation is maintained during the
stimulation placement, as well as the communication path and the root causes behind the lack of isolation
when it occurs (Ugueto et. al. 2015). In CPnP LE completions achieving isolation behind casing between
the fracs (cement quality) and inside casing between the stages (plug performance) is fundamental.
Analysis of DTS provides the means to evaluate stage and perforation cluster isolation. Figure 2 displays
a temperature map of a horizontal well with eleven CPnP LE stages. This well not only shows the
characteristic ⬙stair-step⬙ pattern of a well with good isolation between stages but it also shows well
defined warm-back lags associated with the different perforation clusters.
Figure 2—Example of a DTS temperature map in horizontal well with eleven CPnP LE stages. The figures shows the DTS temperatures
acquired both during (cool-down) and after (warm-back) stimulation. In the figure ⴖwarmer-colorsⴖ represent relative higher tempera-
tures and ⴖcooler-colorsⴖ correspond to relatively lower temperatures. The pattern observed in DTS temperatures indicates the
occurrence of good isolation between both the different stages and perforation clusters. The circles indicate minor cooling resulting
from plug setting and wireline perforation operations.
6 SPE-179124-MS
There is consensus amongst the completion community that communication between stages is highly
undesirable because the energy and materials of the stimulation are partially or totally misdirected from
the target interval to other portions of the wellbore (Ugueto et. al. 2015). Over the last few years there has
been a consistent industry trend toward decreasing frac spacing in CPnP LE and other types of cemented
completions. This highlights the impact that cement defects, including macro and micro annuli, play on
frac placement. Techniques are emerging to identify and quantify isolation between adjacent fracs
(Daneshy et. al 2015). Hopefully these efforts will result in additional emphasis on improving cement
quality in the lateral. In this paper, only perforation clusters and stages with isolation are included in the
assessment of perforation cluster efficiency.
PC Efficiency - Frac Monitoring via DTS
Temperature surveys have traditionally been used to monitor injection efficiency and stimulation con-
tainment. DTS provides us with the ability to monitor both cool-down during hydraulic stimulation and
warm-back before the well is produced (Ugueto et.al. 2014). The presence of a warm-back lag is
indicative of PCs and intervals that received stimulation. Figure 3 shows two DTS profiles collected a few
days and a month after stimulation. This horizontal well was stimulated via 11 stages and 46 perforation
clusters using CPnP LE design (this is the same well shown in Figure 2). In this well there are easily
recognizable late warm-back lags corresponding to each individual perforation cluster. This profile is
typical of many horizontal wells with CPnP LE completions with FO DTS diagnostics. Long lasting
warm-back lags have been observed in almost all of the PCs of several wells (approximately 99%
observed) indicating that fluid has exited almost every PC.
Figure 3—Example of typical DTS temperature profile during warm-back of a horizontal well with CPnP LE completion (11 stages and
46 perforation clusters). In this well both of the DTS temperature profiles collected a few days (orange line) and one month after
stimulation (green line) show the occurrence of late warm-back lag associated with each perforation cluster.
Figure 4 shows a ⬙zoom-in⬙ of the DTS temperature corresponding to the warm-back a few days after
the stimulations for Stage 11 (same well and interval as in Figure 3). In this stage with six perforation
SPE-179124-MS 7
clusters and ~50m (~164ft) frac spacing, the observed late warm-back lags were only a few meters wide
(5 to 10m – 16 to 33ft) and easily distinguishable from other portions of the well that did not receive
treatment. This data reveals not only which perforation clusters received treatment but which portions of
the well were impacted by the stimulation near the wellbore.
Figure 4 —Example of DTS profile during late warm-back of one stage (Stage 11). All these six perforation clusters in stage show
distinctive few meter wide (5-10m) warm-back lags corresponding with each perforation (Zoom –In of same data shown in Figure 3)
The ubiquitous occurrence of warm-back lags across the great majority of perforation clusters does not
necessarily suggest 100% perforation cluster efficiency during the entire treatment. We interpret these late
warm-back lags as indicative that fracs were initiated in most perforation clusters. Preliminary thermal
modeling of the warm-back response in this well indicates that many non-unique solutions are plausible.
A match to the observed temperature response is dominantly controlled by the assumed frac geometry near
the wellbore and the proportion of the injected fluids. Additionally, significant work has been completed
during the past several years to use DTS data to deliver quantitative fluid distribution during hydraulic
fracturing (Kalia et. al. 2014). However, work remains to deconvolve the effects of geometry and fluid
volume.
PC Efficiency - Frac Monitoring via DAS
The integration of DAS results with DTS and hydraulic fracture stimulation (HFS) treatment data allows
for a detailed analysis of the stage and perforation cluster results. Qualitative and quantitative information
about frac stimulation may be gained from this type of analysis (Cox and Molenaar, 2013). Figure 5a
shows an example of an integrated display of DAS, DTS and HFS for a single CPnP LE stage (Stage 4).
The display consists of three time-synchronized annotated panels. First, a DAS color map on top in which
warmer colors represent higher acoustic energies corresponding to fluid and proppant distribution during
8 SPE-179124-MS
the treatment. Second, a DTS color map in the middle in which the warmer colors represent higher
temperatures and cooler colors represent relatively lower temperatures associated with the injection of
stimulation fluid. Finally, on the bottom, a plot of six treatment variables acquired during the stimulation.
In this panel there are: two pressures in blue (surface and downhole), two rates in red (total and clean) and
two concentrations in grey (surface and downhole).
Figure 5a—Examples of DAS and DTS Results (Stage 4). In this stage 2 out of the 3 perforation clusters become inefficient during the
treatment. PC 4.1 becomes inefficient during the proppant ramp and later 4.2 also becomes inefficient when rates are dropped prior to
the start of resin coated proppant placement.
This stage consists of three perforation clusters 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 from toe to heel. At the beginning of
this stage (~ 6:20 to ~6:30) all the PCs received treatment. DTS shows the well temperature cooling down
to the last PC taking fluid (PC 4.1) and all PCs show DAS acoustic energy. In this stage inefficiencies
occur later in the treatment. One perforation cluster becomes inefficient as proppant placement is
increased as indicated by the lack of acoustic energy observed with DAS (PC 4.1 at ~ 7:00). The DTS
across this toe cluster shows the onset of warm-back, confirming that this PC has stopped taking any
significant amount of fluid. Both of these observations are consistent with early discussion about slurry
erosion (Cd and D changes) in Figure 1. When rate is dropped at ~ 7:55, the acoustic energy in PC 4.2
also stops. On this stage only the heel cluster remained active until the end of the treatment (PC 4.1).
SPE-179124-MS 9
Figure 5b displays another example of dymamics occurring during limited entry stimulation. This stage
consists of six perforation clusters labeled 11.1 to 11.6 from toe to heel. At the beginning of this stage (~
22:15 to ~22:25), while pumping the pad at full treatment rate, all the PCs received treatment too. In this
example only 3 out of the 6 PCs received the bulk of the treatment. Some PCs become inefficient when
proppant reaches the perforation as indicated by the DAS acoustic energy (PC 11.3 at ~ 22:35). When the
rate changes at ~ 23:10 the acoustic energy in PC 11.4 diminishes but continues intermittently until the
end of the treatment. Later in the treatment another PC becomes inefficient when a larger diameter resin
coated proppant reaches the perforations (PC 11.5 at ~ 23:45).
Figure 5b—Examples of DAS and DTS Results (Stage 11). In this stage 3 out of the 6 perforation clusters become inefficient during the
treatment. First perforation clusters 11.2 and 11.3 become ineffective early in the treatment. Simulation of 11.5 stops when the resin
coated proppant starts to reach the perforations.
The acoustic energy and temperature observations in these two stages and their interpretation are
common to many other CPnP LE stages. Several insights related to CPnP LE design and execution can
be gained from this type of analysis, some of which are:
● Typically there is enough pressure initially to initiate fracs in all PCs. This is supported by the
overwhelming majority of stages instrumented with FO (DAS and DTS). In most cases, provided
10 SPE-179124-MS
the stage is the same geological layer (similar stresses), the designed initial Perforation Friction
(Ppf) appears to be high enough to initiate fracture across all PCs. In many stages the fractures
appear to initiate from heel to toe.
● In most stages changes in PC efficiency coincide with the start of proppant placement. We attribute
this to the expected changes in both perforation diameter (D) and coefficient of discharge (Cd) for
individual PCs. If the inefficient PC coincides to the toe-most clusters, we typically also see a
corresponding start of a warm-back in the DTS.
● Most decreases of rate during treatment placement resulted in losing one or more of the previously
active PCs.
● After connection is lost with particular PCs we seldom observe the cluster becoming active again
unless a diversion technique is employed.
● There is no clear correspondence between the occurrence of a cluster screen-out, as observed with
FO (DAS and DTS), and the incidence of stage screen-outs. Instead, inefficient clusters appear to
stop taking treatment resulting in others in the same stage taking significantly larger volumes than
planned. These larger cluster volumes likely result in ⬙super-clusters⬙ which may increase risk of
negative impacts for fracture interference with offset wells during treatment, and/or may result in
competitive drainage with offset wells during production.
These and other observations point toward the need to improve both the design and execution of CPnP
LE completions.
PC Efficiency – Frac Monitoring Summary Results

There are many ways available for summarizing Perforation Cluster Efficiency results during frac
placement. Two considerations are important when evaluating PC efficiency: ⬙How many clusters
received the intended treatment?⬙ and ⬙How uniform are the created fractures within a stage?⬙. Figure 6
shows the summary results from DAS of relative treatment allocation for a single field with 5 FO
instrumented wells, 30 CPnP LE stages and 120 perforation clusters. All stages included were treated
similarly (volumes, rates and pressures) and with comparable frac spacing (50m – 164ft). In this analysis
only stages and perforation clusters with good isolation were included. In Figure 6 the results are also
categorized by the number of perforations in the stage and normalized for the intended treatment. The
solid red line at 100% relative treatment allocation would represent equal distribution to all clusters. The
plots indicate that, irrespective of the number of PCs per stage, some clusters received little of the intended
treatment (Less Than 50%) while others received significantly more (Greater Than 150%). Clusters
receiving LT 50% typically are poorer performing clusters, as validated by inflow profile measurements.
Clusters receiving GT 150% are considered ⬙super-clusters⬙.
SPE-179124-MS 11
Figure 6 —Summary Results from 3, 4 and 6 PCs (120 perforation clusters). In this dataset the great majority of the PCs received little
or no treatment (Less Than 50% - Red Wedge) or more than it was intended (Greater Than 150% - Blue Wedge). This is irrespective of
the number of clusters in the stage.
The figure also shows that with an increasing number of clusters per stage there are an increasing
number of clusters receiving less than the 100% intended treatment. Figure 7 indicates the same DAS
relative treatment allocation data but now incorporating the position of the cluster within the stage.
Figure 7—Summary Results from 3, 4 and 6 PCs Stages (same in figure 6) but now incorporating the relative position of the perforation
cluster within the stage. This data clearly shows that there is a heel-bias frac placement within CPnP LE completions irrespective of
the number of cluster per stage.
12 SPE-179124-MS
The results in Figure 7 also show that there is heelward bias at the stage level. Toe clusters are generally
understimulated and heelward clusters are typically better stimulated irrespective of the number of clusters
per stage. This is better shown if the results from the different clusters are presented as averages.
Another way to analyze the data is to evaluate how uniform the stages are. Ideally all the PCs in a stage
should receive an equal amount of treatment. Figure 6 and 7 clearly shows that this is not the case for the
majority of stages. For all these stages a ⬙Uniformity Index⬙ was calculated where ⬙0⬙ corresponds to a
stage in which only one single perforation cluster received the totality of the treatment and ⬙1⬙ to represent
stages where all the PCs received equal treatment.
The results indicate that most CPnP LE stages have, as currently designed, the propensity for unequal
distribution irrespective of the number of clusters per stage (Figure 8). Most recently Holley et. al. 2015
presented completion effectiveness results from a large number wells, stages, and a variety of formations
and completion systems including a significant number of CPnP wells. Results were also categorized by
the number of perforation clusters per stage. Their analysis shows increasing inefficiency with increasing
number of PCs per stage.
Figure 8 —Average Stage Uniformity Index results for 30 stages. An index of ⴖ0ⴖ corresponds to a stage in which only one PC received
treatment. An index of ⴖ1ⴖ corresponds to a stage in which all the PCs received equal treatment. The data suggest rather similar
uniformity regardless of the number of PCs per stage.
From this type of analysis we can conclude that CPnP LE completions with smaller numbers of
perforation clusters show improved placement efficiency and slightly better distribution at similar frac
spacing. More importantly, clusters receiving small proportion of the intended treatment are likely to
perform badly. [DBN2]Also, clusters receiving more than intended are likely to produce well but these
⬙super-clusters⬙ are more likely to interact with nearby wells and create conditions where it becomes more
difficult to develop and utilize the available resource volumes.
SPE-179124-MS 13
PC Efficiency – Production Inflow Profiling DAS & DTS

Production is the ultimate, and more direct, measure of completion efficiency. Completion trials involving
a relatively large numbers of wells, minimum diagnostics and mostly relaying wellhead production are the
industry preferred approach for determining completion effectiveness. While valid, this approach does not
provide information about the efficiency of individual fracs. When production logs are acquired in
horizontal wells it shows that many clusters are not producing and two-thirds of production is coming
from only one third of the perforation clusters (Miller et. al. 2011). Production information at each
perforation cluster can provide critical information for understanding the efficiency of individual stages
and fracs. Unfortunately, in long horizontal wells production logs are seldom acquired and where taken
only provide a snap-shot of the well performance at a discrete time.
Production profiling using FO, DAS and DTS, offers an alternative to conventional production logging.
FO allows observing production continuously and surveying the entire well at the same time. No
subsequent well intervention is required to collect the data. Unlike PLTs, FO interrogation does not
mechanically interfere with the flow and production (van der Horst et. al. 2013). FO also provides a cost
effective way to collect production data in some wells, particularly when the well configuration has made
acquisition difficult or cost prohibitive (for example in horizontal wells or after installing artificial lift).
DAS and DTS provide qualitative and quantitative information about the production of individual
perforation clusters. Figure 9 shows the DAS and DTS results during production for a single stage with
six perforation clusters. Two separate time periods are presented in the figure at thirty and ninety days
after production started, IP30 and IP90 respectively. In this stage (Stage 11) the DAS and DTS show
mostly consistent qualitative indication about which perforation clusters are producing.
Figure 9 —DAS and DTS results during production (IP30 and IP90) for a single stage. This qualitative interpretation of the DAS and DTS
can be used to estimate Perforation Cluster Efficiency. In this stage (Stage 11) results from DAS and DTS are mostly consistent,
indicating than four out of six clusters are producing.
14 SPE-179124-MS
During IP30 there are four out of six producing clusters with lower temperature and higher acoustic
energy clearly discernable from the background temperature and noise of the intervals between perfora-
tion clusters. At IP90 DTS and DAS mostly show the same producing clusters contributing to the well’s
production, but now the DAS shows one additional cluster, PC 11.2, potentially producing at a lower rate
at this time and two dominant clusters PC 11.4 and PC 11.5. DAS and DTS information such as this can
be used to determine the perforation cluster efficiency. In this well analysis of the perforation efficiency
from such qualitative analysis of the DAS and DTS for all the stages indicates efficiencies of around 80%
at IP30 and 70% at IP90. This type of analysis of cluster efficiency is common in the industry, but fails
to capture the observation of highly variable and dominant cluster production.
DAS and DTS have been successfully evaluated to determine production at the stage and PC level for
a single phase gas flow. Quantitative analysis of production can also be performed using both DAS and
DTS. This allows allocation of gas rates at each perforation cluster. Cumulative distribution plots provide
a very convenient and clear way to represent the production outcome of stage and PC results. Figure 10
shows the cumulative distribution of DAS calculated production for a single well during both IP30 and
IP90. PCs that either do not produce or produce very little are identified by applying a cut-off equivalent
to background acoustic energy. Using this information, PC efficiency, measured via DAS Production
Profiling Results, ranges between 85% and 68% for the two presented evaluation periods. It is clear from
this figure that when using production data to measure efficiency there is a need to reference the results
to a common datum (for example IP90).
Figure 10 —Cumulative Distribution of DAS Calculated Production Results at IP30 and IP90. Perforation cluster efficiency in this well
ranges between ~ 85% at IP30 and ~ 68% at IP90. In addition to depletion other factors such as reduced effective frac dimensions or
a decrease in frac conductivity can also reduce PC efficiency.
FO production profiling and the understanding of production at PC level can also be used to evaluate
completion technology and design within a single well. Alternating the completion design within the same
well minimizes the impact that subsurface variability can have in a single well trial. Figure 11 shows the
SPE-179124-MS 15
same DAS production profiling results for IP90 presented before but now separating the results between
the different numbers of clusters within the same well (Stages with 6 vs 3 PCs per stage). In this test most
of other design aspects were kept constant including total fluid and proppant volume per stage and
perforation cluster distance. Results from this test clearly indicate that stages with 3 PCs outperform those
with 6 PCs. Not only are the stages with 6 PCs less efficient than 3 PCs stages, but as a population the
3 PCs stages produce far more.
Figure 11—Cumulative Distribution of DAS Calculated Production Results at IP90 for 3 and 6 PCs stages. Categorizing the production
in two groups allows estimating the efficiency and production of the two alternative completion designs. In this example PC efficiency
of the 3 PCs stages is only ~90% while that of 6 PCs stages is ~ 60% for the same time period (IP90)
Continuous FO monitoring can provide a comprehensive understanding of the relation between

production and treatment efficiency, frac conductivity, effective frac dimension, depletion, etc. Such
information may be used not only to determine completion efficiency, but to determine the economic
value of a given completion design, practice or technology.
Conclusions
The Perforation Cluster Efficiency of CPnP LE completions may be understood and evaluated using FO
data such as DAS and DTS. Integrated diagnostics should play a critical role in the evaluation of CPnP
LE and other completion methods, designs and technologies.
Most horizontal wells’ completed CPnP LE systems show that some amount of hydraulic fracturing
occurs in all perforation clusters. This is contrary to the commonly held opinion about the cause behind
CPnP LE inefficiencies (lack of fracture initiation). Nevertheless, in CPnP LE completions a significant
numbers of PCs become inefficient during the execution of the treatment, particularly during the start of
proppant placement or when rates are lowered late in the treatment.
16 SPE-179124-MS
Estimates of PC efficiency in CPnP LE based on FO diagnostics suggest efficiencies of between 50%

and 70%, depending on the number of perforation clusters per stage. Completions with smaller numbers
of clusters are more efficient. As a general rule it can be assumed that only half or two-thirds of the
perforation clusters are properly stimulated or produced at significant rates. Assessments of Perforation
Efficiency in CPnP LE completion are dependent on ⬙how⬙ and ⬙when⬙ they are estimated. When
estimating efficiency via production profiling a common datum is required (for example IP90).
The presented diagnostic data demonstrates a ⬙Case for Action⬙ for an improved LE design process.
Experimental data has been summarized with reference to literature to demonstrate the variability in, and
calibration of, the critical design parameters for effective LE design. A series of examples were presented
to help illustrate the complex interaction of the design parameters and operational practices associated
with limited entry design and execution. Maintaining higher Ppf has potential to improve effective LE
distribution, but requires wellhead treatment pressure margin and increases hydraulic horsepower require-
ments (and costs) to execute the treatment. For CPnP LE completions, a balance between the inherent
inefficiencies and cost should determine the optimum number of PCs in any given project. Our job as
engineers is to balance the operational constraints with effective stimulation distribution for the best
economic solution. This is as true today as it was 55 years ago when LE was first introduced.
Acknowledgments
The authors want to acknowledge the management of Shell Exploration and Production Company and its
affiliates for their permission to publish this paper. We like to recognize the contribution of Cris O’Brien
and Jim Brewer for helping improve the performance of Limited Entry design completions. We also want
to thank Richard Tummers for helping us gain access to the data. We want to thank Gustavo Ugueto-Rey
Jr and Dave Nasse for their edits, Bill Westwood, Dahai Chang and Lee Stockwell for their continuous
support of the Unconventionals’ Fiber Optic program over the last few years. Finally, we would like thank
the Asset Teams for the extra effort to plan and execute the installations and applications successfully.
References
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
Lagrone, K. W., & Rasmussen, J. W. (1962, January 1). Better Completion by Controlled Fracture Placement Limited-
entry Technique. American Petroleum Institute
Lagrone, K. W., & Rasmussen, J. W. (1963, July 1). A New Development in Completion Methods- The Limited Entry
Technique. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/530-PA
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
Ugueto, G. A., Huckabee, P. T., & Molenaar, M. M. (2015, February 3). Challenging Assumptions About Fracture
Stimulation Placement Effectiveness Using Fiber Optic Distributed Sensing Diagnostics: Diversion, Stage Isolation
and Overflushing. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/173348-MS
Daneshy, A. A., Touchet, C., Hoffman, F., & McKown, M. (2015, February 3). Field Determination of Fracture
Propagation Mode Using Downhole Pressure Data. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/173345-MS
Ugueto, G. A., Ehiwario, M., Grae, A., Molenaar, M., Mccoy, K., Huckabee, P., & Barree, B. (2014, February 4).
Application of Integrated Advanced Diagnostics and Modeling To Improve Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation Analysis
and Optimization. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/168603-MS
Kalia, N., Gorgi, S., Holley, E., Cullick, A. S., & Jones, T. (2014, April 1). Wellbore Monitoring in Unconventional
Reservoirs: Value of Accurate DTS Interpretation and Risks Involved. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/168995-MS
Cox, B. E., & Molenaar, M. M. (2013, January 28). Field Cases of Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation Diagnostics Using Fiber
Optic Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) Measurements and Analyses. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/164030-MS
Holley, E. H., & Kalia, N. (2015, August 4). Fiber-optic Monitoring: Stimulation Results from Unconventional Reservoirs.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/178520-MS
SPE-179124-MS 17
Miller, C. K., Waters, G. A., & Rylander, E. I. (2011, January 1). Evaluation of Production Log Data from Horizontal
Wells Drilled in Organic Shales. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/144326-MS
Van der Horst J., den Boer, H., in ’t Panhuis P., Kusters, R., Roy, D., Ridge, A., & Godfrey, A. (2013, March 26). Fibre
Optic Sensing for Improved Wellbore Surveillance. International Petroleum Technology Conference. doi:
10.2523/IPTC-16873-MS

Spe 179124 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 179124 Ms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE-179124-MS

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

⫽ Total flow rate(bbl/min)

Perforation Cluster Efficiency

PC Efficiency - Stage and Perforation Cluster Isolation Implications

PC Efficiency – Frac Monitoring Summary Results

PC Efficiency – Production Inflow Profiling DAS & DTS

Continuous FO monitoring can provide a comprehensive understanding of the relation between

Estimates of PC efficiency in CPnP LE based on FO diagnostics suggest efficiencies of between 50%

You might also like