SPE/IADC 163405

Novel Technique to Drill Horizontal Laterals Revitalizes Aging Field

Steven D. Cinelli, University of Alaska Fairbanks and Ahmed H. Kamel, University of Texas of the Permian Basin

Copyright 2013, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 5–7 March 2013

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC 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 or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not
necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors, 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 or the International Association of Drilling Contractors 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/IADC copyright.

Abstract
Upward trends in oil prices and the proliferation of new technology enable operators to capitalize on new opportunities.
Horizontal drilling and completion are opening up reserves in many fields that were not previously economically viable.
This trend is not limited to previously undeveloped fields or by lithology. Operators are also able to gain higher recovery
from old fields where production has declined over time, making new opportunities for matching technology to economies of
scale for such marginal projects.
This paper outlines the recompletion of a portion of a 40 year old field using radial jet drilling, RJD. The reservoir is a
carbonate formation with low permeability. The combination of low permeability, low productivity from traditional vertical
completions in a thin net pay, and lack of low cost techniques to improve well productivity caused the production to dwindle.
After acquiring the lease in late 2010, the new operator implemented a program of radial jet drilling and acid/nitrogen
fracturing to enhance field production. Radial jet drilling is a low-cost, environmentally-friendly method to drill numerous
small diameter horizontal laterals from a vertical or near-vertical wellbore. It works in both new and old wells that already
have a production history.
A general overview of radial jet drilling technology is presented, and the completion and production history of the field is
outlined. The present paper summarizes the workover effort and the production data before and after the workovers. The
results show that nearly a two-fold production increase was obtained. It can be clearly seen that radial jet drilling can be a
viable alternative to improve productivity of shallow reservoirs that still have significant oil in place that can’t be produced
with the existing conventional completions.

Introduction
The Donelson West field, located in Cowley County, Kansas, covers about 1,200 acres. The target formation is the Altamont
limestone, which is in the upper part of the Marmaton group in the Middle Pennsylvanian series. It is a fine crystalline
limestone that varies in color from light brown to brownish white. The formation displays some pinpoint and vugular
porosity. Formation porosity typically varies from 15 to 20 % while permeability varies from 1 to 10 millidarcies and net pay
thickness varies from 6 to 10 ft. The primary driving mechanism is gas drive. To date, the field has been on primary
depletion. Developing such filed with traditional techniques is expensive which makes it economically unviable.
Horizontal drilling and completions has helped increase production in fields that may be uneconomic with traditional
completions. However, traditional horizontal techniques are still expensive and may not be suitable in marginal oil/gas
reservoirs. Radial jet drilling (RJD) is a low cost alternative that can be effectively used to capture the benefits of horizontal
drilling in smaller-scale reservoirs. RJD has been proven to enhance production rates, to reduce decline rates, to reduce near
wellbore damage, and to recover more resources from stripper wells (Dickinson and Dickinson, 1985; Dickinson et al, 1990,
Dickinson et al, 1993; Abdel-Ghany et al, 2011).
RJD technology is oriented toward existing oil and gas wells in North America at depths of 4,500 feet and shallower. It is in
response to the need to economically extract more oil and gas from existing wells using a much more cost effective method
than existing technologies. Radial Jet Enhancement has made it feasible to enhance production from more than 1.7 million
wells that would otherwise be cost prohibitive to recover. This represents a total potential untapped market of more than $50
billion.
RJD is a cost efficient application to complete vertical and horizontal wells that can allow well connection with vertical
permeability channels. RJD can also be a viable alternative for traditional perforating and extended horizontal penetration
2 SPE/IADC 163405

reach beyond near wellbore damaged zone, for acid wash and matrix acidizing, and for traditional water injection/disposal
applications (Yonghe et al, 2000).
RJD Technology has been applied since the late 1990’s. Over the past 4 years, radial drilling services by several service
companies were performed for both major and independent E&P companies in the US, Canada and South America with
significant productivity improvement results. This paper describes horizontal drilling and presents a case study of an aging
field that was revitalized with RJD.

Radial Jet Drilling. As shown in Fig. 1, RJD is a low-cost way to drill small-diameter horizontal completions. Instead of
being drilled with a conventional bit and drilling mud, RJD uses high-pressure water, diesel, or acid to be expelled through a
high-pressure hose and a nozzle to drill into the formation. The nozzle has orifices that face forward to cut the rock, and
orifices that face backwards at a 45-degree angle to push the nozzle forward into the formation and to widen the hole behind
the nozzle. The hose is delivered down the hole via a coiled tubing unit (CTU) (Abdel-Ghany et al, 2011).

Fig. 1: Radial jet drilling (Courtesy of Buckman Jet Drilling)

RJD Procedure. Fig. 2 outlines RJD procedure. The first step of the drilling process is to remove the production equipment
from the well and rig up the CTU. The end of the coil tubing (CT) is equipped with a 90-degree deflector shoe that points
sideways into the formation when lowered downhole. This deflector shoe is essentially a 90-degree elbow. The CT is then
lowered down the well until the deflector shoe reaches the target formation. In a cased hole application, a special cutter is
lowered into the well by CTU until the cutter reaches the casing. The cutter is then energized to perforate the casing and
cement. After the casing is penetrated, the high-pressure hose with the jet nozzle can be lowered downhole inside the CT.
Once the nozzle has reached the formation, the drilling fluid is pumped through the high-pressure hose and exits the nozzle,
which both jets the lateral and advances the nozzle and hose into the formation. The jet of fluid exits the nozzle at very high
speeds, erodes the reservoir, and drills the lateral. At the end of the process, the pressure in the hose is decreased as the hose
is removed from the jetted hole, which circulates out any remaining cuttings left behind. If only one lateral is being jetted, the
procedure is complete. If more laterals are going to be completed, then the process is repeated as many times as desired
(Marbun et al, 2011, Abdel-Ghany et al, 2011).
Different firms offer this service commercially, so procedures vary depending on the operators and their proprietary
equipment. Some firms mill the casing and then jet the hole; others mill the casing, turn the deflector shoe, mill another hole
in the casing, and then jet the holes out into the formation. Others use abrasive sand in the jetting fluid, allowing them to
eliminate the use of a cutter and use this sand to cut through the casing instead. Fundamentally, these procedures follow the
same essential pattern of milling the casing and jetting the hole.

RJD Equipment. The casing cutter itself is typically a burr mill run by a mud motor. The jetting nozzle, on the other hand,
has several orifices that face forward, and several that face backward at a 45-degree angle. The forward orifices cut the rock,
SPE/IADC 163405 3

while the backward-facing orifices enlarge the hole and push the nozzle forward into the formation. The overall nozzle
diameter typically varies from 0.5 to 0.75 inches and is approximately an inch long. Fig. 3 shows the nozzle and the lateral,
demonstrating how the forward spray cuts the formation while the rearward spray accelerates the nozzle’s progress into the
rock and circulates cuttings from the hole (Dickinson et al, 1992; Bruni et al, 2007). Fig. 4 shows several different jet drilled
holes; each was drilled into sandstone via RJD.

Fig. 2: RJD procedure (Courtesy of RadJet).

Fig. 3: Jet nozzle and high pressure hose (Courtesy of Buckman Jet Drilling).

There are three primary penetration mechanisms that drill the rock in RJD. These mechanisms are erosion, pore-elastic
tension, and cavitation. The high-pressure fluid jet erodes the formation by pumping a relatively small amount of water at
high pressure and high velocity through a very small hole. Pore-elastic tension occurs when high pressure water enters the
pore space, increasing the pore pressure and causing the rock to fracture. The sudden increase in pore pressure subsequently
produces cavitation: fluid-free bubbles are formed in the areas of lesser pressure and immediately implode, causing
shockwaves that enhance the fracturing of the formation. In RJD, the CTU resists the weight of the hose hanging in the well
as well as the force created from the backward-facing jets in the nozzle. As a result, the high pressure hose is subjected to a
4 SPE/IADC 163405

significant amount of tension which is beneficial for the operation. This tension pulls the high pressure hose tight and ensures
a straight bore (Yonghe et al, 2000). These forces are illustrated below in Fig. 5.

Fig. 4: Sandstone demonstrating RJD holes (Courtesy of Buckman Jet Drilling).

Fig. 5: Cross-sectional view of the nozzle in action (Courtesy of RadJet).

Drilling Fluids. The fluid pumped through the high pressure hose to the nozzle varies depending on reservoir lithology and
formation fluid properties. In most cases, water is sufficient as it has obvious advantages as an RJD fluid. It is a cost effective
fluid, readily available, easily disposable, and with no HSE issues. However, in water-sensitive formations, diesel fuel may
be used to drill the radials. Diesel fuel also has solvent properties that may be advantageous for waxy reservoir fluids; it aids
penetration by cutting paraffin in the formation and does not emulsify as water might. In carbonate formations, hydrochloric
acid is an advantageous drilling fluid; combining the effects of pressure and dissolution of carbonates. Finally, abrasiveness
occurs as a result of proprietary blast-sand, which utilizes the effects of water pressure and sand-blasting to physically erode
the casing and formation. The use of abrasives can eliminate the need for a separate cutter to penetrate the casing (Gidley et
al, 1989; Towler, 2002).

Advantages of RJD. The primary benefit of RJD is its economic: it can be a cost effective method to complete vertical wells
to perform like an open hole horizontal completion. Drilling a new or sidetrack horizontal completion with a rotary rig
requires pulling the tubing, killing the well, and drilling large diameter completions at traditional rates of penetration. These
expenses can make drilling horizontal wells with a rotary rig cost prohibitive in a small field. RJD on the other hand can be
accomplished with a small CTU and standing pumping equipment. With the appropriate combination of deflector shoe and
tubing diameter, the laterals can be jetted through-tubing, eliminating the need for pulling the production tubing. RJD is also
fast. Utilizing existing well shafts, the RJD technology can laterally enter areas in a "wheel and spoke" fashion and penetrate
SPE/IADC 163405 5

up to 300 feet, in up to 16 different directions, at any given depth. The technology has the ability to drill up to 8 laterals in
only two days, as opposed to a typical period of four weeks per well. In addition, RJD does not utilize traditional drilling
mud. This is both a cost and a technical advantage in that there is no formation damage due to filter cake build up on the rock
face. RJD technology allows multi-layer application in thicker reservoir zones, reduces the need for additional stimulation,
and avoids the problems of changes in well-bore configuration (Dickinson et al, 1993; Yonghe et al, 2000, Bruni et al, 2007).

Limitations of RJD. RJD does have limitations. The biggest limitation is that while a jet drilled lateral begins to mimic the
performance of a horizontal completion, it is not a horizontal completion. There is no way to complete the lateral with a liner
as it is impossible to run casing into the lateral. Managing future production from the well could be very difficult. Should the
operator want to shut off flow from the lateral doing so could be impossible. Reentering the lateral after it has been drilled
could be very tricky, and pumping some type of sqeeze down the lateral could be very problematic. Additionally, there are no
surveillance options inside the lateral. If the lateral begins to produce water or gas, there is no way to diagnose which part of
the lateral is contributing to the flow since standard logging tools likely won’t fit into the lateral (Abdel-Ghany et al, 2011).
Directional control of the lateral is also very difficult. This can make reaching specific targets very challenging, and also
presents the risk that the lateral could extend out of the target zone and into an undesirable zone that contains either water or
gas. Additionally, laterals can prematurely terminate due to fractures, faults, or other reservoir heterogeneities. There is no
way to steer the nozzle while it is drilling, so if it runs into one of these barriers, it can turn path or lose flow (Radial Jet,
2008).

Case Study
The Donelson West field is about 1,200 acres reservoir of fine crystalline limestone in Cowley County, KS. It has an average
permeability of 1- 10 millidarcies and an average porosity of 15 – 20%. The net pay varies from 6 to 10 ft. To date, the field
has been on primary depletion.

Original Oil in Place (OOIP). The formation volume factor of the produced crude is 1.1. Reservoir volumetrics indicate that
a total of 2.7 million barrels of oil may have originally been in place. With a 35% recovery factor, as much as 0.95 million
bbl may be recoverable.

Production History. The Donelson West field commenced the production in 1967. During 1968, the field produced 83,000
bbl from 13 wells, after which production quickly began to decline. During 1973, the field produced only 14,858 bbl. Over
the last 10 years, production from the field has been very low. From 2000 to 2009, the field averaged 1,033 bbl per year, with
a maximum annual production of 1,701 bbl per year during 2009. (See Fig. 6.)

Fig. 6: Annual Oil Production and Wells Online by Year

Historical production from the field is characterized by immediate and severe decline. Production over the last decade is only
a fraction of the field initial production. This is due to the fact that the field is on primary depletion. However, there has been
6 SPE/IADC 163405

variation in production year by year over the last decade. Fig. 7 summaries the field production and producing well count
from 2000 to 2010.
Overall, Fig. 7 shows an upward trend in production over the last ten year period. Throughout the period there has also been a
general upward trend in the number of wells online. From 2001 to 2002, there was a decrease in production, and the number
of producing wells went from five to four. As wells came back online in 2003, production in 2003 and 2004 increased. From
2003 to 2004, the well count decreased by two, but by 2005, the well count was up to ten. However, oil production from 2004
to 2007 steadily decreased, which may be related at least partially to the low well count in 2006 and 2007. After 2007,
production steadily increased from under 1,000 bbl per year to nearly 2,500 bbl per year. Throughout this time, oil prices
were steadily increasing. It is likely that much of the up and down in the well count and modest growth in production was due
to the oil price increase and attempts to boost production by optimizing the surface kit.
Despite the low production over the last ten years, the lease has significant potential. Cumulative production from the field
through 2011 was about 0.45 MMbbl. With an OOIP of 2.7 million bbl, only about 17% of total reserves have been
produced, and approximately 2.2 million bbl remain. Since there has been no pressure support, it is possible that the field’s
total recovery factor could be improved significantly. If total recovery is increased to 35%, as much as 0.5 mm bbl additional
reserves could be recovered. Given the low production, long history, and sizeable remaining reserves, this lease may was a
candidate for investment.

Fig. 7: Annual Oil Production and Wells Online by Year Since 2000

Historical Field Development. The field was originally developed with vertical completions. These completions were
followed by acid/nitrogen fracturing. The wells were not all identically treated, and those treated with between 10,000 to
15,000 gallons of acid and 125,000 Mcf nitrogen produced at higher rates than other wells fractured with less acid.

Field Redevelopment. A new operator acquired a 320-acre lease in the field during late 2010. After acquiring the acreage,
they soon began developing a program to produce the remaining recoverable reserves. The overall plan consisted of
stimulating the existing wells and initiating an infill drilling program. This plan was completed in several phases. The initial
phase consisted of recompleting and stimulating eight existing wells and drilling two new wells in the lease. Ultimately, the
field will be drilled on 10-acre spacing, and each well will be completed with RJD laterals. After the laterals have been
completed, each will be hydraulically fractured with 15,000 gallons of acid and 250,000 Mcf of nitrogen.

Drilling Operations and Results. The laterals were drilled over a period of several weeks. Two of the wells were jetted on
the same day. Each of the remainder of the wells took a full day to jet. The old wells were completed with four different 600
ft laterals that each required 500 gallons of acid to drill. The new wells were also completed with four different 600 laterals
but with 400 gallons of acid for each lateral. After the jetting, each well was stimulated with a 15,000 gallon acid frac
followed by 250,000 Mcf of nitrogen. After fracturing, the wells were put on production. Both of the new wells came on
strong with flush production, and seven of the existing wells came on, with one of the existing wells never coming back
online.
SPE/IADC 163405 7

The well that never came back to production is located on the far western edge of the lease. The formation generally thins to
the west, and the indicators are that the combination of thin pay and low pressure are such significant that the well simply
won’t produce. However, despite the one well that never came back to production the overall success of the ten well
programs was excellent. Table 1 summarizes total monthly field production prior to the workovers, as well as total monthly
field production after the workovers.

Table 1 – Pre-Workover and Post-Workover Production

Before RJD After RJD
Year bbl/month Months After bbl/month
2002 11 1 1100
2003 62 2 974
2004 125 3 976
2005 106 4 961
2006 85 5 789
2007 70 6 790
2008 133 7 1124
2009 142 8 797
2010 197 9 803
Average: 157 (last 3 yr) 938

During 2006 and 2007 the field was producing from only five wells. From 2008 to 2010 all ten of the wells produced. As
Table 1 indicates that prior to the workovers, the field was averaging about 157 bbl per month over the last three years. After
the workovers, the field was averaged 938 bbl per month, a six-fold production increase. Fig. 8, a plot of the monthly
production, clearly shows this step change in production rates that occurred with the new wells and the workovers of the old
wells.

Fig. 8: Monthly Oil Production Before and After Field Redevelopment

Again, the step change in production is clear. However, the production numbers after the workover include two new wells
that account for a significant fraction field production. Fortunately, there is adequate production information to separate
production from the new wells from the production from the old wells.
Fig. 9 is a plot of total field production and production from both the two new wells and seven old wells. Generally speaking,
8 SPE/IADC 163405

the two new wells account for 70 % to 80 % of total lease production. These two new wells came on strong and as the
adjacent pressure has depleted, their production has declined. The remaining 20% to 30% of current lease production has
been consistently better than 200 bbl per day. Fig. 9 does indicate abnormally high production during March, 2012. Just prior
to this period, the pumps on the two old wells were replaced. The pump replacement resulted in short term production
benefits that are primarily responsible for the production increase. During June 2012, production from both the old and new
wells was down slightly. During this time, there was production disruptions associated with additional infill drilling and
bringing those new wells online. The before and after comparison of old well production is shown in Fig. 10.

Fig. 9: Production Splits: Old Wells vs. New Wells

Fig. 10: Before and After Production Plot of Old Wells

SPE/IADC 163405 9

The step change in production after the RJD and acid fracturing is evident on Fig. 10. Prior to the RJD, the wells struggled to
reach 200 bbl per month. Afterwards, production reached nearly 500 bbl one month, and is consistently in the range of 250
bbl per month. Table 2 presents monthly production data for the old wells before and after the workovers.

Table 2 – Old Wells Production: Before and After

Before RJD After RJD
Year bbl/month Months After bbl/month
2002 11 1 231
2003 62 2 244
2004 125 3 234
2005 106 4 248
2006 85 5 221
2007 70 6 213
2008 133 7 475
2009 142 8 247
2010 197 9 265
Average: 157 (last 3 yr) 264

From 2008 to 2010, the field averaged 157 bbl per month from the old wells. For the nine month period after the RJD/acid
fracturing treatment, the wells have averaged 264 bbl per month. However, much of the variation in historical production is
due to fluctuating well count. During periods when wells were shut in production was down. Table 3 summarizes average
monthly production per well and Fig 11 is a plot of this data.

Table 3 – Old Wells Production: Before and After Per Well

Before RJD After RJD
Year bbl/month Months After bbl/month
2002 3 1 33
2003 9 2 35
2004 25 3 33
2005 11 4 35
2006 17 5 32
2007 14 6 30
2008 13 7 68
2009 14 8 35
2010 20 9 38
Average: 16 (last 3 yr) 38

After normalizing for well count, the success of the treatment is evident. The per well average production rates for the three
years prior to the RJD work was 16 bbl of oil per month. After the treatments, the per well production rate is on average 38
bbl per month. Even with excluding the seventh month in which production benefits from two pump replacements was seen,
the monthly average rate per well is 34 bbl. This is a two fold increase in production. Fig. 11 is a production plot of the
monthly per well average production rates before and after the RJD/acid fracturing treatment.

Discussion of Results and Limitations of Analysis

Results. The data clearly indicates that the old wells are producing more oil overall, and on average, each of the producing
wells is producing more oil except for the one well which never came back. Despite losing one well, the overall RJD/acid
fracturing campaign was a success with well production doubling afterwards.

Interaction of Contributing Success Factors. This reservoir has suffered from significant pressure depletion. Initial
10 SPE/IADC 163405

production declines were very severe and began immediately. There has never been any kind of pressure support. As a result,
the field is producing at very low drawdown with beam bumps. Much of the pumping equipment was repaired or replaced
during the period when the RJD/acid fracturing was being completed. Additionally, there is no available production data
between the completion of the jet drilled laterals and the acid fracturing.

Fig. 11: Before and After Production Plot: Old Wells Average Monthly Rates.

The overall production increase from the old wells is likely due to at least some interaction between the new pumping
equipment and the RJD/acid fracturing. Some of the production increase is likely due to higher drawdown (as witnessed in
the seventh month production when two pumps were replaced) and some of the production increase is certainly due to the
RJD/acid stimulation. Furthermore, some of the productivity increase is due to the laterals, and some is due to the acid
fracturing. Unfortunately there is no way to separate the benefits of these due to scarcity of data. Finally, metering at the field
is also very basic. Oil production is based on production over relatively long periods of time and sophisticated flow
measurements and data simply don’t exist. Furthermore, historical production is based on Kansas Geologic Society
databases. The data is available only on an annual basis, and well counts in particular may mask actual field performance.

Mechanisms of Productivity Increases. The observable success of the RJD/acid treatments is the pronounced step change
in oil rates. However, the real question is under what mechanism does RJD impact well productivity. There are several
possible scenarios. The first is simply that the laterals expose more rock face and increases the amount of rock that can flow.
It is also possible that the laterals change the flow regimes from radial flow to something that behaves more like a horizontal
completion with more linear flow. In this particular case of vugular limestone, the idea may be that the laterals have opened
up some of the vugularity or other diagenitic features in the formation that is contributing to the flow. Additionally, the use of
acid as a jetting fluid and subsequent acid fracturing may be a contributing factor. It is probable that the long horizontals,
though small diameter, are able to aid fracture propagation. Four laterals per well, each penetrate 600 ft into the formation,
could be a significant head start for fracture propagation. Conversely, they could also hinder fracture propagation if the
laterals themselves contribute to leak off and the fluid can’t sufficiently breakdown the formation. Additionally, the effect of
acid in limestone is well understood to be of a significant benefit. It is also possible that the orientation of the laterals is
important. Whereas hydraulic fracturing tends to propagate fractures parallel to the formation’s natural fractures, RJD can
enter the rock perpendicular to the natural fractures and open up flow through them. The particular mechanism that caused
the productivity increase at this field is uncertain, but it is probable that it is a combination of some of these factors.

Conclusions
Prior to the lease changing hands, this field was essentially shut in with only sporadic production that amounted to about 150
bbl per month. Two new wells were drilled, which were completed with RJD laterals and fractured with acid and nitrogen.
Eight old wells received a similar RJD/ acid fracturing treatment. Only one of the old wells that were treated failed to
produce oil after the work. After this work, the field average production was over 900 bbl/month. Analyzing the production
SPE/IADC 163405 11

from the new wells and the old wells separately indicated that between 20 and 30% of this total production came from the old
wells. This represents a two fold increase in production from the old wells on an average per well basis.
Despite its limitations, RJD can be effective for completing both new and workover wells with radials up to 1,000 ft long due
to its low environmental impact, economical enhancement of reservoir productivity, suitability for many formation types,
enhanced effectiveness of subsequent well stimulation treatments, and the speed at which laterals can be drilled. Future work
might focus on comparing the productivity of jet drilled laterals to traditionally drilled horizontal wells, skin factors, and
comparison of theoretical productivity predictions of horizontal wells to actual productivity of horizontal jet drilled laterals.

Abbreviations
bbl = barrel
CT = coiled tubing
CTU = coiled tubing unit
RJD = radial jet drilling
OOIP = original oil in place
Mcf = thousand cubic feet

References
Abdel-Ghany, M. A., Siso, M., Hassan, A. M., Pierpaolo, P., and Roberto, C. 2011, New Technology Application, Radial Jet
Drilling Petrobel, First Well in Egypt. Paper SPE 2011-163 presented at the 10th Offshore Mediterranean Conference and
Exhibition, Ravenna, Italy, March 23-25.
Bruni, M., Biassotti, H., and Salomone, G. 2007, Radial Drilling in Argentina, Paper SPE 107382 presented at the SPE Latin
American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, April 15 -18.
Buckman Jet Drilling. 2010. Leading Innovators in Jet Drilling Technology, www.buckmanenergyservices.com (accessed 14
April 2012).
Dickinson, W. and Dickinson, R. 1985, Horizontal Radial Drilling System, paper SPE 13949 presented at the SPE California
Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, March 27-29.
Dickinson, W., Dickinson, R., Herrera, A., Dykstra, H., and Nees, J. 1992, Slim Hole Multiple Radials Drilled with Coiled
Tubing, paper SPE 23639 presented at the Second Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference, II LAPEC, Caracas,
Venezuela, March 8·11.
Dickinson, W., Dykstra, H., Nordlund, R., and Dickinson, R. 1993, Coiled-Tubing Radials Placed by Water-Jet Drilling:
Field Results, Theory, and Practice, paper SPE 26348 presented at the 68th SPE/ATCE, Houston, Texas, October 3-6.
Dickinson, W., Pesavento, M., and Dickinson, R. 1990, Data Acquisition, Analysis, and Control while Drilling with
Horizontal Water Jet Drilling Systems, Paper SPE 21602 presented at the International Technical Meeting, Calgary, Canada,
June 10 – 13.
Gidley, J.L., Holditch, S.A., Nierode, D.E., Veatch, R.W. 1989. Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing. Monograph
Series, Vol. 12, Richardson, Texas: Textbook Series, SPE.
Kansas Geological Survey. 2005. Stratigraphic Succession in Kansas, www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/189/07_penn.
html (accessed 14 April 2012).
Kansas Geological Survey. 2010. Stratigraphy of the Marmaton Group in Kansas, www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins
/58/ 04_ strat.html (accessed 14 April 2012).
Marburn, B., Sinaga, S., Arliyando, A., and Putra, S. 2012, Review of Ultra short-Radius Radial System (URRS), Paper
IPTC 14823 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, February 7-9.
RadJet. 2012. RadJet Technology, http://www.radjet.com/technology/radjet-vs-competitors/ (accessed 14 April 2012).
Towler, B.F. 2002. Fundamental Principles of Reservoir Engineering. Textbook Series, Vol. 8 (3-4), Richardson, Texas:
Textbook Series, SPE.
Well Enhancement, LLC. 2008. Radial Jet Enhancement Technology, www.encapgroup.com/cms/index.php?id=15 (accessed
14 April 2012).
Yonghe, L., Chunjie, W., Lianhai, S., and Weiyi, G. 2000, Application and Development of Drilling and Completion of the
Ultra short-radius Radial Well by High Pressure Jet Flow Techniques, paper SPE 64756 presented at the SPE International
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, November 7–10.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

Acre × 4.046873 E+03 = m2
bbl × 1.589 873 E–01 = m3
ft × 3.048* E–01 =m
gal × 3.785 412 E − 03 = m3
in. × 2.54* E + 00 = cm
psi × 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa