Apparent friction factor (ft)

The friction factor represents the force exerted by fluid on the wall; different equations exist to
calculating friction factor at wall for both smooth and roughness pipe in turbulent flow. The apparent
friction factor can be written as the following equation;

Fo is friction factor is of unporforated wellbore.

Asheim et al. [3] presented a mathematical model to predict the local friction factor due to inflow from
perforations as shown in the following equation.

Where q/Q and n are the inflow rate per unit length to main flow rate ratio and the number of
perforation respectively. Asheim's et al. equation is a good acceptable to calculate the friction factor for
perforation effect. The inflow rate for perforations q is expresses as

Where:

D: Wellbore Diameter (m) q: Inflow Rate from Perforation (m3/s)

d: Perforation Diameter (m) ui , vi: Velocity Vector f: Friction Factor.

e: Roughness (m) μ: Fluid Viscosity (kg/m.s)

Several factors influencing perforation performance are as follows :

1. Rock properties – compressive strength, fracture pressure
2. Mineral content of the rock metric
3. Tectonic stress and overburden pressure of the reservoir
4. Reservoir pressure and temperature
5. Reservoir fluid
6. Completion fluid
7. Wellbore configurations such as size and grade of casing, wellbore deviation and
orientation
Optimizing perforating practices involves optimizing the parameters related to perforating operations.
These include charge type, shot density, phase angle, and in special cases, orientation:

o Charge type: Small-diameter perforations created by deep penetrating charges are recommended
for sand prevention. Smaller perforation tunnel diameters are more stable than larger ones created
by big-hole charges. While small, deep perforation tunnels enhance single-perforation stability
during drawdown and depletion, they also, along with optimum perforation spacing, enhance the
stability of the adjacent formation.
o Shot density: When zones around perforation tunnels fail and interlink, the collapsing formation
can cause massive sand production. The distances between perforations dictate the stability of
this adjacent formation. Smaller holes and lower shot densities serve to increase perforation
spacing and formation stability. However, this also has the undesirable effect of increasing a
perforation's flow rate and facilitating the transport of failed formation material that can promote
sand production. Higher shot densities keep pressure drawdown, flow rate, and drag forces
through each perforation below a critical value. The objective is to minimize the pressure drop
across the surfaces of the perforation tunnels.
o Phase angle: In addition to shot density, phasing also dictates perforation spacing. Optimizing the
phase angle for a given wellbore radius and shot density maximizes the perforation-to-perforation
spacing, which in turn decreases or avoids entirely interaction between adjacent perforations and
the surrounding rock. This reduces formation failure and zonal interlinking risk without
compromising individual perforation flow rates. For example, custom-designed perforating
systems developed by Schlumberger can be used to optimize phasing for maximum between-
perforation distances and minimal collapsed formation risk.

Shots per foot or spf is a unit of shot density that is shows the number of holes in length of 1 foot.
Usually this unit is used in perforating process.

Horizontal Well Completion

The horizontal well is completed in the same way as the vertical well, except the drill pipe is “kicked off”
at a certain vertical depth, which allows the drill bit to enter the prospective formation horizontally. 
Casing is still run all the way to the end of the hole (the casing bends), and the well is perforated and
fracked in the same manner as the conventional vertical well.  However, the frac is likely to be much
larger in a horizontal well as there is proportionally more rock to fracture.

The completion of the hole is mainly in the hands of the petroleum engineer.  The basics are briefly
covered here:

The main parts of a completed well are the oil or gas-bearing formation, the drilled hole, many lengths
of steel pipe, cement to hold the pipe in place, a set of perforations, a surface well-head connection,
and possibly a pump.
After it has been decided that the hole will be completed, steel pipe is run all the way to the bottom of
the hole and cemented in place. This stops oil, gas, and salt water from coming into the hole from
formations above the pay zone.  In the example well, conductor casing extends from the surface to
approximately 50′ depth. Then surface casing is installed to approximately 500′. A 13 3/8″ casing is run
to approximately 1000′.  All these casings serve to protect the ground water.  The casings overlap, so
that there are 4 layers of casing at the surface!  Finally, a production string of 5 1/2″ casing will cover the
rest of the hole to the bottom.

With the development of drilling and completion technology, horizontal wells are more widely used in
bottom water reservoir as an effective way to increase productivity and reduce costs, while problems
arise in the production process, which mainly are shorter anhydrous harvest period led by water coning,
and faster cut rising. Besides, completion method doesn't meet the requirements of the development
and capacity prediction is not accurate, either. Based on the summarization of stable horizontal well
productivity prediction models, this paper uses the horizontal well productivity prediction mathematical
model under the action of the wellbore and reservoir coupling, and solves finite conductivity vertical
fracturing wells pressure with Cinco H's dynamic calculation method, then the model of production
forecast is established. The model takes the bottom water drive reservoir horizontal well into account,
and carries out the productivity prediction in different completion mode after the decomposition
calculation of skin factor in different completion mode. The results of these studies have important
guiding significance for the optimization of horizontal well completion as well as the study of horizontal
well reservoir engineering.

References :

Behrmann, L.; Brooks, J.E.; Farrant, S.; Fayard, A.; Venkitaraman, A.; Brown, A.;
Michel, C.; Noordermeer, A.; Smith, P.; and Underdown, D.: "Perforating Practices That
Optimize Productivity," Oilfield Review 12, no. 1, Spring 2000.

Sulbaran, A.; Carbonell, R.; and Lopez-de-Cardenas, J.: "Oriented Perforating for Sand
Prevention," SPE 57954, SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, May-June, 1999.