Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEADIP/proceedings-pdf/16ADIP/2-16ADIP/D021S052R004/1422587/spe-183427-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Durham on 20 September 2023
`
`SPE-183427-MS
`
`Application of Ball-Drop Technology to Improve Efficiency and Stimulation
`of Limited Entry Completion Systems
`
`Rob Oberhofer, Daniel Snyder Packers Plus Energy Services Inc.
`
`Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers
`
`This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November 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
`Ball-drop or ball-activated completion systems for multistage hydraulic fracturing are designed to reduce
`stimulation time and improve efficiency by being pumped in one continuous operation. Actuation balls are
`used in these systems to activate sliding sleeves and internally isolate the production liner into individually
`isolated stages. While this technology is traditionally associated with single point entry stimulation (one
`ball per sleeve), advancements in ball-drop technology have led to the development of a system that uses
`one ball to activate multiple sleeves, combining the efficiency of ball-drop completions with the placement
`accuracy of limited entry stimulation in cemented liner completions.
`Limited entry ball-activated completion technology has evolved over time. Each iteration has been
`designed with fewer components to further improve the operational efficiency of having one ball activate
`multiple sleeves in a treatment zone. The latest advancement in this technology has seen a 40% reduction in
`the number of components, which in turn reduces operational risk. While limited entry ball-drop completion
`systems have been run for over a decade in openhole applications, the newest version was specially designed
`to run in a cemented liner application.
`The latest version of limited entry ball-activated completion systems is designed to stimulate a high
`number of entry points in one treatment more effectively, reduce overdisplacement, reduce completion time,
`remove risk of wireline and coiled tubing runs, eliminate the need to millout the system prior to flowback,
`and solve entry point erosion concerns. Each port or sleeve is designed to have its own back pressure or
`limited entry effect (equivalent perforation pressure), which is customizable for each application. By using
`a non-erodible material in each sleeve the limited entry effect is designed to be consistent throughout the
`entire stimulation. This is a significant improvement over existing limited entry tools and plug-and-perf
`completion designs and will lead to more effective distribution throughout the entire stimulation.
`In each field trial to date using the new limited entry ball-drop completion technology, all the sleeves have
`opened and stimulation treatments have been delivered as designed. In the cemented liner applications, the
`limited entry ball-activated sleeve system allowed stage to stage transitions without shutting down pumping
`operations.
`Limited entry ball-drop completion systems provide instant time and operational improvements to
`traditional cemented liner completion methods. These time and cost improvements can significantly reduce
`total well costs, which is especially important for operators in low price commodity environments.
`
`IWS EXHIBIT 1055
`
`EX_1055_001
`
`

`

`Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEADIP/proceedings-pdf/16ADIP/2-16ADIP/D021S052R004/1422587/spe-183427-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Durham on 20 September 2023
`
`2
`
`SPE-183427-MS
`
`Introduction
`Oil and gas operators have been successful in boosting production from horizontal wells in unconventional
`reservoirs over the last decade. Part of this increase can be attributed to advances in several areas of
`directional drilling and multistage completion techniques that have allowed for increased lateral lengths and
`tighter stage spacing. Changes in completion design during this time have also trended towards increased
`pump rates, and higher fluid and proppant volumes.
`In cemented liner completions, the most common method used is plug-and-perf. This completion
`technique is mature and proven, having been applied in thousands of wells around the world. Most horizontal
`plug-and-perf completions performed today group a number of perforation intervals, or clusters, into
`the same stage. The limited entry (LE) stimulation technique is then used to simultaneously stimulate
`all perforation clusters. The goal of the limited entry technique is to create a pressure drop across the
`perforations that will help uniformly distribute fluid to each perforation cluster by combining increased rate
`and reduced number of total perforations. However, even or effective distribution still remains one of the
`technical challenges of stimulating horizontal wellbores.
`Despite the simplicity and popularity of plug-and-perf completion operations, producers are faced with
`a few legacy challenges, as well as more recent challenges due to the advances that have led to longer and
`deeper horizontal wells. A few of these challenges in plug-and-perf completions include:
`• Poor perf cluster efficiency and unproductive clusters
`• Excess fluid volumes and overdisplacement
`• Completion time
`• Operational risk
`• Millout issues
`Unproductive Clusters
`Studies have shown that, on average, the majority of a well's production comes from only 20-30% of
`perforation clusters (Lecampion 2016). Another recent study concluded that the inefficiencies found from
`LE plug-and-perf completions are due to perforation clusters becoming inefficient as the job progresses.
`This is due to erosion of perforations as proppant and fluid are pumped, and thus the change in the LE design.
`The study also concluded that increasing the number of perforation clusters in a stage does not typically
`increase the number of productive clusters (Ugueto C 2016). Both of these studies show the need for a proper
`and consistent limited entry design is needed for effective distribution and that ineffective distribution does
`lead to a reduction in ultimate recovery from the reservoir.
`If a perf cluster is under stimulated, or not completed as intended, it is likely to perform poorly and
`the ultimate recovery will be less than expected. In addition, if one cluster is under stimulated, then other
`clusters will receive more fluid and proppant than expected causing overstimulation of the other clusters.
`In some field development this could lead to interwellbore communication or cause the fractures to interact
`with nearby wells. Ultimately, when a LE design is not performed as planned the amount of stimulated
`reservoir volume (SRV) is less than expected and valuable reserves are left in the reservoir.
`
`IWS EXHIBIT 1055
`
`EX_1055_002
`
`

`

`SPE-183427-MS
`
`3
`
`Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEADIP/proceedings-pdf/16ADIP/2-16ADIP/D021S052R004/1422587/spe-183427-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Durham on 20 September 2023
`
`Figure 1—Ineffective Limited Entry design can lead to understimulated
`perforation clusters or sleeves and ultimately less production.
`
`Tracer diagnostics also validate the premise that the initial (heel-most) perforations in a cluster can
`quickly erode due to the high velocity flow of proppant slurry (Phelan 2013). As these perforations enlarge,
`other clusters within the stage are not effectively stimulated, correlating to subsequently poor production.
`
`Fluid Volume and Overdisplacement
`Plug-and-perf practices require the wellbore to be flushed clean between each stimulation treatment. The
`flush is done to ensure there are no issues when pumping the perforation charges and bridge plugs down
`the wellbore to prepare the next stage. The operation of flushing the wellbore clean and pumping the plug
`and perforation guns down to the next stage could consist of several hundred barrels of fluid behind the
`final sand stage (Phelan, Casero 2013). Not only does this process require more fluid than sliding sleeve
`systems, it also overdisplaces the fracture treatment for each interval and can contribute to a loss in near
`wellbore conductivity.
`
`Figure 2—Overdisplacement of proppant can allow a fracture to close and lose near wellbore conductivity.
`
`Completion Time
`While plug-and-perf completions are known for being flexible and simple, it is an inherently inefficient
`procedure, requiring multiple trips in and out of the well for each stage to detonate perforation charges, set
`bridge plugs and mill out conventional bridge plugs. Operational improvements such as zipper stimulations
`and technology improvements to bridge plugs have allowed for a reduction in downtime, but still remain
`inefficient. Completion downtime costs in US unconventional plays between two wells treated identically
`can cost the operator hundreds of thousands of dollars.
`
`Operational Risk
`Tripping in and out of the wellbore adds to non-productive time, and increases the likelihood of encountering
`problems, such as wireline getting stuck in the well if a bridge plug does not release or if a bridge plug
`
`IWS EXHIBIT 1055
`
`EX_1055_003
`
`

`

`Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEADIP/proceedings-pdf/16ADIP/2-16ADIP/D021S052R004/1422587/spe-183427-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Durham on 20 September 2023
`
`4
`
`SPE-183427-MS
`
`prematurely sets at an unplanned depth. In these situations, operators may choose to mill out or abandon
`the stage.
`A recent analysis of completion effectiveness using the plug-and-perf limited entry technique using
`Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) and Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS) has shown that greater
`than 70% stages experienced inter-stage communication. This was attributed to leaking plugs (Wheaton
`2016). This study also showed that greater than 70% of a stage's fluid volume and proppant were placed in
`two perforation clusters or less and that in 64% of the stages one or more clusters took less than one quarter
`of the planned proppant of the stage.
`Another operational challenge of conventional plug-and-perf is stimulating the toe or first stage of
`the wellbore. Unless the toe stage uses a hydraulically opened tool, coiled tubing is used to convey the
`perforating charges for the first stage. In these cases, friction in long laterals makes it difficult to push the
`bottomhole assembly to sufficient depth to begin treatment. The toe stimulation is critical in that lower
`stages are effectively lost if the bottomhole assembly cannot reach the toe of the well. Wireline tractors can
`be used to assist the bottomhole assembly, but this also adds cost and risk to the operation.
`Other operational challenges encountered less frequently, but should still be noted are when perforation
`guns do not fire correctly. If flow through bridge plugs are run a wireline perforation rerun can be taken,
`however if a solid bridge plug was used a tubing conveyed perforation (TCP) run would be required.
`Another operational challenge in some horizontal applications is where operators are forced to drill laterals
`in extreme updip formations, greater than 100° inclination. Pumping plugs and perforation guns to depth
`can be an even greater challenge in updip formations that exceed the operating limits of setting the plugs
`and perforating the guns safely. Milling the bridge plugs out afterwards can also be an issue.
`Finally, the safety and logistics of handling perforation guns and equipment must be considered in the
`completion design. This becomes a greater concern when perforation guns do not fire correctly. In some
`regions internationally it is more difficult to work with explosives than in the US plays where they are
`readily available and permits are easier to acquire.
`
`Millout Issues
`Coiled tubing operations are required to mill out plugs at the end of traditional plug-and-perf completions,
`as well as every time a plug unintentionally pre-sets. Just as plug conveyance may be difficult in extended
`reach laterals, plug removal is also a major operational challenge and financial consideration. As longer
`laterals are drilled, milling out with coiled tubing can become a challenge due to limitations of weight on
`bit while milling, and the length of coiled tubing with respect to the total depth it can reach.
`Milling out bridge plugs is particularly an issue in wells with low reservoir pressure. Low reservoir
`pressure can create challenges with circulation resulting in low annular velocity, which creates difficulties
`in flowing plug parts back to surface and increases the risk of stuck coiled tubing (Aviles 2015). Millouts
`provide a high variable cost at the end of the well.
`
`Limited Entry Ball-Activated Completions
`Despite the challenges with plug-and-perf completions, it remains a common industry practice. As with
`the combined synergy of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to access previously uneconomic
`unconventional reservoirs, combining the effectiveness and efficiency of ball-drop technology with a limited
`entry treatment for cemented liner completions provides a solution that:
`• Reduces completion time, fluid volume and operational risk with a continuous pumping operation
`• Reduces chance of overdisplacement, maintaining near wellbore conductivity
`• Eliminates plug millout issues using degradable ball technology
`
`IWS EXHIBIT 1055
`
`EX_1055_004
`
`

`

`Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEADIP/proceedings-pdf/16ADIP/2-16ADIP/D021S052R004/1422587/spe-183427-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Durham on 20 September 2023
`
`SPE-183427-MS
`
`5
`
`• Reduces cluster inefficiency and erosion by stimulating all entry points in a treatment zone
`Limited entry ball-drop completion systems were first developed shortly after single point entry openhole
`multistage (OHMS) ball-drop systems were introduced in the early 2000s. Early limited entry tool design
`included a cutter assembly and multiple shear-activated stimulation jets. The actuation ball would land in
`the cutter assembly and then travel along the treatment zone, cutting off kobes from each stimulation jet to
`provide access to the formation. The actuation ball in the cutter assembly provided stage isolation inside
`the liner, while hydro-mechanical packers were used for annular isolation to segment the treatment zone.
`This system was primarily used for matrix acid stimulation treatments (Seale 2006).
`
`Further Development
`As limited entry ball-drop technology advanced, and the need for more stages increased, the cutter assembly
`was removed from the system and the jet nozzles were activated directly using an actuation ball pumped
`from surface. This system was originally designed for an openhole application and could be run in two
`configurations: multiple sleeves in between each packer, or one sleeve between each packer, creating
`multiple individual intervals or entry points within one stage pumped from surface. These tools were used for
`both acid and proppant stimulation treatments, and established the versatility of limited entry ball-activated
`completion technology. Over the years, these limited entry ball-drop completion systems were run more
`than 200 times in numerous unconventional reservoirs around the world.
`The transition to the use of a single ball for actuation reduced the number of tools required for each
`stage by removing the operational risk of leaving a cutter assembly and kobes in the wellbore; however, it
`increased the number of components in each sliding sleeve. The increased number of components in each
`sleeve introduced a new challenge when designing a limited entry ball-drop system for cemented liners.
`
`Cemented Limited Entry Ball-Activated Completions
`The newest version of limited entry ball-drop technology was designed specifically for deployment in
`cemented liner completions. Combined with port covers and a coating that prevents cement from adhering
`to the tools, the sliding sleeve in this system is a simplified mechanical assembly with approximately 40%
`fewer components than earlier limited entry ball-drop completion technology.
`
`Figure 3—Limited entry ball-activated sleeve designed with fewer components to reduce operational risk.
`
`The resulting cemented limited entry ball-drop completion system is designed to:
`• Solve entry point erosion concerns by creating consistent diversion through the stimulation
`• Effectively stimulate each entry point throughout the entire frac stage
`• Stimulate a high number of entry points
`• Reduce completion time and fluid volume pumped between stages
`• Eliminate risk of wireline and coiled tubing runs
`
`IWS EXHIBIT 1055
`
`EX_1055_005
`
`

`

`Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEADIP/proceedings-pdf/16ADIP/2-16ADIP/D021S052R004/1422587/spe-183427-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Durham on 20 September 2023
`
`6
`
`SPE-183427-MS
`
`• Eliminate need to millout the system prior to flowback
`Entry Point Erosion Solution
`The flow ports, or flow nozzles, of the sliding sleeves are reinforced with tungsten carbide to prevent the
`issues encountered with perforation erosion. The abrasive resistant material allows for the flow area, and
`designed limited entry effect, to stay consistent throughout the entire stimulation. This can ensure that each
`sleeve (or cluster) is effectively stimulated according to design. The size of the entry point is customized for
`the sliding sleeves based on completion design parameters and planned stimulation program. By combining
`the two features of reinforced nozzles and custom sizing, operators can achieve the optimal pressure and
`pump rate during treatment to distribute fluid through each sliding sleeve (or entry point) in a stage. This is
`a significant improvement over existing limited entry tools and plug-and-perf completion designs.
`
`Stimulate a High Number of Entry Points
`A simplified sliding sleeve with fewer components was achieved by incorporating proprietary technology
`into the design of the cemented limited entry ball-drop sliding sleeve. A ball on seat has been historically
`tested to see what the ball and seat combination is able hold differentially. The new technology, referred
`to as squeeze technology, identifies where the ball and seat configuration is optimal and when a seat will
`allow a ball to land and then pass. Utilizing the squeeze technology reduces operational risk by removing
`several moving components of the sleeve and eliminating the need for a mechanical assembly to allow a
`single ball to activate multiple sliding sleeves in a stage. The squeeze technology also removes limitations
`on the number of sliding sleeves in a stage that can be encountered when using an indexing mechanism for
`allowing the ball to travel between sliding sleeves. In testing, one ball has been used to successfully open
`more than 20 ball seat sliding sleeves.
`
`Reduce Time and Fluid Volume
`Ball-activated completions are designed to operate in a continuous pumping operation. The actuation ball
`used to activate the sleeves in a stage is pumped at the tail end of the stimulation treatment of the previous
`stage. This process can allow for reduced overdisplacement or zero overflush. Compared to plug-and-
`perf operations, this reduces the amount of fluid pumped between stages, reducing overall completion
`time and helping to avoid overdisplacement of the previous stage's proppant treatment. A reduction in
`overdisplacement will lead to an increased near wellbore conductivity as the proppant is not pushed further
`into the reservoir.
`
`Eliminate Risk of Wireline and Coiled Tubing
`Tubing or coiled tubing is not required to run perforation charges for the first stimulation stage in the
`cemented limited entry ball-drop completion system; a hydraulically activated sliding sleeve is deployed as
`part of the production liner. Following the cement program a wiper dart is pumped downhole to displace
`cement from the wellbore and seal the liner at the toe of the well. This allows for pressure to build inside
`the liner and open the hydraulically activated sliding sleeve to start the first stimulation. The use of a
`hydraulically activated sliding sleeve and balls to activate sleeves removes the requirement of handling
`perforating guns on location and potential misfires, which increases overall safety. In addition, continuous
`pumping operations of limited entry ball-drop completions remove the need to convey bridge plugs and
`perforation charges downhole.
`
`Eliminate Need to Millout
`The cemented limited entry ball-drop sliding sleeves are designed to be used exclusively with degradable
`actuation balls. After the stimulation program is complete the balls degrade leaving an open wellbore
`for flowback without milling out the system. This enables the producer to bring the well on production
`
`IWS EXHIBIT 1055
`
`EX_1055_006
`
`

`

`Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEADIP/proceedings-pdf/16ADIP/2-16ADIP/D021S052R004/1422587/spe-183427-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Durham on 20 September 2023
`
`SPE-183427-MS
`
`7
`
`immediately and eliminates the cost of having additional equipment and personnel on-site for the operations.
`The use of dissolvable balls also provides the operator with a fixed cost while milling out bridge plugs are
`variable. Reduced variable costs help the operator keep completion expenses in line with estimates (Van
`Sickle 2013).
`
`Limited Entry Ball-Activated Completion Design
`The limited entry ball-drop system solves one of the major issues with the standard limited entry design
`methodology – it utilizes non-erodible nozzles that are customized to the completion stimulation design
`requirements. The basic functioning of the sliding sleeve is the same as the service provider's other sleeves
`which have been run over 200,000 times. The limited entry ball-activated sliding sleeve consists of an
`outer housing with an inner sliding sleeve and a ball seat. However, instead of slots for communication on
`the standard ball-drop sleeve, the limited entry sliding sleeve has customizable nozzles. The non-erodible
`customizable nozzles are used to create the limited entry effect.
`Limited entry calculations for a sliding sleeves are very similar to a conventional cemented liner using
`plug-and-perf. A pressure pumping analysis is prepared for the entire system to determine what maximum
`pumping rate can be obtained for each stage. A pressure drop or the perforation friction calculation is then
`designed between each sleeve with respect to flow area to ensure limited entry distribution.
`The most important factor in ensuring all sleeves or perforation clusters receive equal distribution
`throughout the entire stimulation is the limited entry completion design. This design ensures efficient and
`consistent stimulation of each productive interval. The equation below describes the perforation friction or
`pressure drop used for limited entry design (Willingham et. al. 1993):
`
`where p is Pressure Drop or Perforation Friction (psi); q is flow rate (bbl/min); ρs is slurry density of fluid
`(lb/gal); Nnozzle is number of nozzles or perforations; Dnozzle is diameter of nozzle or perforations (in.); Cd is
`coefficient of discharge.
`
`Limited Entry Ball-Drop Case Studies
`Limited entry ball-drop systems have been introduced in several cemented horizontal applications. All jobs
`have been designed for each application according to the planned stimulation program in order to achieve
`an effective limited entry.
`
`Figure 4—Set-up of a Limited Entry Ball-Activated completion design.
`
`IWS EXHIBIT 1055
`
`EX_1055_007
`
`

`

`Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEADIP/proceedings-pdf/16ADIP/2-16ADIP/D021S052R004/1422587/spe-183427-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Durham on 20 September 2023
`
`8
`
`SPE-183427-MS
`
`Case Study 1
`The first limited entry ball-drop cemented system with five sliding sleeves and a hydraulically activated
`toe sleeve was installed in the Mississippi formation in Oklahoma. The limited entry ball-activated sliding
`sleeves and the hydraulically activated sleeve were run at the toe of a cemented wellbore, which ran to a
`measured depth of more than 12,000 ft. The sleeves were spaced one joint apart.
`The toe stage was hydraulically opened for a diagnostic fracture injection test approximately 2 weeks
`before the rest of the wellbore was stimulated. Once pumping procedures started, the five sliding sleeves
`were opened as planned with one degradable actuation ball. The slickwater treatment for the stage was
`pumped as per program, reaching a pump rate of 100 barrels per minute (bpm). The completion operation for
`the entire stage was completed in approximately two hours less compared to that of a single stage completed
`using plug-and-perf methods. A step rate test was conducted to conclude each port was open and taking fluid.
`
`Case Study 2
`The second limited entry ball-drop cemented system with 15 sliding sleeves and a hydraulically activated
`sliding sleeve at the toe of the well were installed in the Meramec formation of Oklahoma's STACK play.
`The sliding sleeves and the hydraulically activated sleeve were run at the toe of a cemented wellbore, which
`ran to a measured depth of more than 12,000 ft. The sleeves were spaced one joint apart.
`The sliding sleeves were separated into three stages with five sliding sleeves, or entry points, per stage.
`One actuation ball was used to activate all five sliding sleeves in each stage, which all successfully opened
`as planned. The stimulation treatment of each stage was pumped as designed, reaching an average pump rate
`of 100 bpm. The continuous pumping operation of the limited entry ball-drop system allowed the operator
`to transition between each stage in 10 to 15 minutes, rather than the hours of non-productive time between
`stages in a typical plug-and-perf completion.
`
`Run History
`At the time of writing this paper a total of 10 systems have been installed and stimulated as per design.
`
`Future Considerations
`Cemented limited entry ball-activated sliding sleeves are still in the early stages of development. Early
`field trials have proven the functionality of the technology. Although third party diagnostic tools, such as
`Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS), Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS) or microseismic monitoring,
`have not been run in conjunction with the system to date, it is compatible and an option in future field trials.
`Future projects are already being planned with microseismic monitoring.
`Operational Lessons Learned:
`– Coiled Tubing (CT) can be run through the sleeves successfully without a sleeve prematurely opening
`– A ball can be dropped and then pushed onto seat with CT to open the sleeve and squeeze through a seat
`– Coordinating when to drop the ball and when to pump acid is essential to the operation to have a
`quick and continuous transition from stage to stage
`– Each sleeve can have a unique pressure drop to follow reservoir parameters if required
`
`Conclusion
`Many completion techniques have been used for fracture stimulation of horizontal wells. Plug-and-perf
`completions have been used for many decades, however ineffectively stimulated wellbores and time-
`consuming operations carry high costs and risks that leave a number of challenges for producers to overcome
`when using this method.
`Development of limited entry ball-drop completions has been ongoing for several years. Recent
`advancements in the materials technology and the effectiveness of degradable balls makes limited entry
`
`IWS EXHIBIT 1055
`
`EX_1055_008
`
`

`

`Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEADIP/proceedings-pdf/16ADIP/2-16ADIP/D021S052R004/1422587/spe-183427-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Durham on 20 September 2023
`
`SPE-183427-MS
`
`9
`
`ball-drop completions an ideal completion method for stimulating horizontal cemented wellbores. This
`technology provides a solution for many of the challenges faced when using plug-and-perf methods,
`including:
`• Reducing completion time and fluid volume pumped between stages
`• Reducing chances of overdisplacement, maintaining near wellbore conductivity
`• Eliminating risk of wireline and coiled tubing runs
`• Removing need to millout the system prior to flowback
`• Solving concerns regarding entry point erosion and fluid distribution within a treatment stage
`
`Acknowledgments
`The author would like to thank Packers Plus Energy Services for their permission and support to publish
`this paper. A special thanks to everyone who contributed during the editing and research phases in preparing
`this paper.
`
`References
`Aviles, I., Dardis, M., & Jacob, G. (2015, November 9). Infinite Plug and Perf - The Value of a Full Bore Degradable
`System. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/177736-MS
`LaGrone, K., Rasmussen, J.: "A New Development in Completion Methods – The Limited Entry Technique," JPT, July,
`1963, pp. 693–702.
`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 Engineers. doi:10.2118/173363-MS
`Phelan, K. M., Adefashe, H. A., & Casero, A. (2013, January 28). Open Hole Multi-Stage Completion System in
`Unconventional Plays: Efficiency, Effectiveness and Economic. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/164009-
`MS
`Seale, R. A., Athans, J., & Themig, D. J. (2006, January 1). An Effective Horizontal Well Completion and Stimulation
`System. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/101230-MS
`Ugueto C., G. A., Huckabee, P. T., Molenaar, M. M., Wyker, B., & Somanchi, K. (2016, February 1). Perforation Cluster
`Efficiency of Cemented Plug and Perf Limited Entry Completions; Insights from Fiber Optics Diagnostics. Society
`of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/179124-MS
`Wheaton, B., Haustveit, K., Deeg, W., Miskimins, J., & Barree, R. (2016, February 1). A Case Study of Completion
`Effectiveness in the Eagle Ford Shale Using DAS/DTS Observations and Hydraulic Fracture Modeling. Society of
`Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/179149-MS
`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
`Van Sickle, S., Galloway, J., McClellan, C., Snyder, D., (2015, November 9). Economic and Operational Analysis of
`Systematically Deploying New Technologies in Two US Unconventional Plays. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
`doi:10.2118/176984-MS
`
`IWS EXHIBIT 1055
`
`EX_1055_009
`
`