American Oil and Gas Reporter - February 2020 - 33

that have been fractured with sand have
smooth edges with a polished reflection.

FIGURE 2
Treated (left) versus Untreated (right) Perforation

Optimization Signs

FIGURE 3A

Stage-Cluster Number

Stage 16 Cluster Efficiency after Fracturing
16-4

158%
124%
133%

16-4

422%

16-3

742%

284%
240%
268%

16-2
16-1

365%
0%

100%

200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
Percentage Increase in Hole Sizes

700%

800%

FIGURE 3B

Stage-Cluster Number

Stage 17 Cluster Efficiency after Fracturing
17-5

91%

17-5

104%

17-4

82%

17-4

79%

17-3

360%

17-3

207%

17-2

250%
0%

100%

200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
Percentage Increase in Hole Sizes

700%

800%

FIGURE 4
Percentage Change in Hole Size
Versus Perforation Orientation after Fracturing
1,400%
Percentage Increase in Hole Size

Once the data from the camera was
organized and incorporated with fracture
treatment data, an interesting trend began
to emerge that offered telltale signs of
optimization. The data is entered into
charts showing cluster efficiency with
each perforation having a stage-cluster
number (for instance, 16-2 is stage 16,
cluster 2) indicating whether it is a heel
(numbers from 1 and 2) or toe (numbers
3 and 4) perforations. As shown in Figure
3A, stage 16 shows an even fracture treatment except for cluster 3. Why? By incorporating the fracture treatment data,
the differentiators are revealed.
Stage 16 had diverter pods dropped
with most of the fracture treatment going
evenly into the clusters and a higher percentage of growth in the radius of the
perforations. This stage had average
growth of 304% and a high of 742%
growth in perforation size compared with
the initial pre-fracture perforation. Stage
17 (Figure 3B) had no pods and the fracture treatment stayed mainly in the heel
section of the cluster, with average growth
of 175% and a high of 360% in perforation
size. It is easy to see that the diverters
helped equalize the growth of the perforations during the fracture treatment
process, even though both fracture treatments showed preferential growth toward
the heel.
Other variables include perforation
orientation within the casing. Using "clock
face numbering" from 1-12, with high
side representing 12 o'clock and low side
6 o'clock, shows perforation effectiveness
(Figure 4). Of course, other variables
occur within the wellbore, such as continuous cement bond, deviation and the
perforation shot density, but for this wellbore, the data was consistent. The perforations on the low side from 3-7 o'clock
showed the largest growth in diameter
post-fracture treatment.
Referencing the snapshot of the wellbore in stages 16 and 17, let's now look
at post-fracture treatment perforation
growth of all the stages to gain potential
insights for optimizing future production.
The mean average growth was 270%
with a minimum of 110% and a maximum
of 555%. Combining the perforation analytics process with the fracture treatment
data allows the operators to rationalize

1,200%
1,000%
800%
600%
400%
200%
0%
0

6
8
Perforation Position Clock Face

FEBRUARY 2020 33

American Oil and Gas Reporter - February 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - February 2020