Sand Jet Perforating Revisited

J.S. Cobbett, SPE, 4 Arundel Close, Passfield Liphook, Hants, GU30 7RW United Kingdom
Summary
Though sand jet perforating is not a new technique, it is one that
has been almost forgotten, the last SPE paper on the subject being
published in 1972. Unlike explosive perforating, which is literally
a one shot process, sand jet perforating uses a high velocity jet
of abrasive fluid to cut through the casing, cement and deep into
the formation, enabling pressure, pumping time and other parameters to be varied to maximize penetration. Sand jets can penetrate
much deeper than explosives, and offer a cost-efficient, safer and
better-targeted alternative to hydraulic fracturing to bypassing
deep near-wellbore damage.
This paper is based mainly on experience in Lithuania, where,
in 1995, joint venture oil companies first started field operations to
complete development of small oil fields found in the west of the
country ~see Fig. 1! during the Soviet era, but which had been
considered as too small to develop for the Soviet Union, with
giant oil fields to the east. Wells, some of which had produced on
test at over one thousand barrels per day, had been left with heavy
mud across open perforations, often for more than a decade. When
it proved impossible to get these wells to flow again using ~western! tubing conveyed explosive perforators ~TCPs!, sand jetting
was used, as has been the almost universal practice in Lithuania.
The first well sand jet perforated by a joint venture company,
which had yielded less than one barrel per day with ~western!
TCPs, gave over 900 barrels per day when perforated with sand
jets.
Subsequently, one of the best producers in Lithuania, which
had already been sand jetted once, was reperforated using more
advanced techniques. Coiled tubing was run through the xmas tree
and completion to enable the well to be sand jet perforated, with
oil as the carrier fluid, underbalanced, with the well flowing
throughout, resulting in a doubling of production to 800 BOPD.
Though sand jet perforating is, at least theoretically, available
from the main pumping contractors, it is almost unknown outside
North America and the former Soviet Union, the main technical
references ~Refs. 15! being over 30 yr old. Sand jet perforating
does, however, provide a cost-effective means of passing deep
formation damage and should form part of the armory of any
practicing petroleum engineer. This paper aims to remind engineers of this, review the technology and suggest appropriate
applications.

Introduction
Most of the oil and gas produced today comes from wells with
cased, cemented and perforated completions. Nowadays, the perforations are almost always made using shaped-charge explosives,
either run on electric line or tubing conveyed ~TCP!. In addition to
punching holes through the casing, the main purpose of perforating is to pass the damaged zone, near to the wellbore, where
drilling and completion operations have caused a reduction in permeability. This damaged zone, often quantified as skin from
well-test analysis, typically extends from a few inches to a few
feet into the formation. With modern drilling and completion techCopyright 1999 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 55044) was revised for publication from paper SPE 39597, first presented
at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette,
Louisiana, 1819 February. Original manuscript received for review 18 February 1998.
Revised manuscript received 10 November 1998. Paper peer approved 18 November
1998.

28

niques, including improved drilling fluids and well-productivityfriendly drilling practices, the depth of the damaged zone and
the degree of damage ~i.e., the contrast in permeabilities between
damaged and undamaged formations! can be minimized, enabling
modern perforating techniques, particularly underbalanced perforating with deeply penetrating low-debris TCP guns, to obtain
maximum productivity, and hence maximum value, from newly
drilled and completed wells.
Though most new wells can be perforated effectively with explosives, there remain exceptions. Where perforating performance
is significantly reduced, usually because the formation is very
hard, it may be impossible to get adequate penetration with explosives. In some wells, explosive perforation may be ineffective at
passing a very deep damaged zone, perhaps due to poor drilling
and completion practices or in old wells that have been left with
drilling mud across open perforations. As explosives are ~literally!
a one shot process, it is not practical to reperforate many times
to improve penetration, as the chances of reperforating along ~and
thus extending! the original perforation tunnels would be minimal.
Where increased penetration has been required, this has usually
been via hydraulic fracturing.
In contrast to explosive perforation, perforating by high pressure fluid jets is not a one shot process. Unlike explosives, the
amount of energy, and hence rock destruction, that can be
achieved at one point is not fixed but can be increased by, for
example, pumping for more time or at a greater pressure. Though
hydraulic jet perforating with clear water or brine is used ~see
Refs. 5 and 6!, more often sand has been added to the fluid to
improve the penetration rate. For this reason, and because the
present author has no experience in using clear fluids, this paper
will refer to sand jet perforating only.
Most of the technical papers on sand jet perforating have been
written by engineers employed by pumping companies ~for example, Refs. 13, 69! and concentrate on the mechanical aspects
of the perforating process. This paper will comment also on the
productivity, and in particular the cleanup, of sand jet perforated
wells.
Technology, Equipment, and Operational Techniques
Details of the technology, equipment and operational techniques
are well described in the references at the end of this paper and
will only be summarized here. Sand jet perforating uses a jet of
fluid, with sand added to improve penetration rates, pumped at
high pressure through a jet nozzle to cut through the casing, cement and into the formation. Though other fluids, including diesel
and crude oil, have been used, usually the fluid used is clear water
or a brine of sufficient weight to ensure that the well remains
dead. If appropriate, the fluid may be inhibited, for example, with
KCl to prevent clay swelling. A sand jet perforating tool ~see Fig.
2!, run on the end of the treating work string, carries one or more
tungsten carbide jet nozzles. High pressure pumps on the surface,
together with a sand blender, are used to mix and pump the water
and sand.
Though different operators and different service companies use
different parameters, 1 lbm/gal of sand is typically used in the
treating fluid. Surface pressures of up to 5000 psi are used, with
jet nozzle sizes typically 1/4 in. diameter. Though some operators
have used a hydraulic holddown to lock the sand jet perforating
tool in position ~see, for example, Refs. 7 and 8!, others move the
treating string so as to slot the casing and formation ~see, for

1064-6671/99/14~1!/28/6/$3.5010.15

SPE Drill. & Completion 14 ~1!, March 1999

Fig. 2Sand jet perforator for work string.

Fig. 1Oil fields in Lithuania.

example, Ref. 3!. Typically four holes per meter are made, with
typically up to half an hour pumping time at each depth. The
interrelationships between sand type and concentration, nozzle diameter, nozzle velocity, target rock type, pumping time, penetration rate, total target penetration, etc., are discussed in detail in the
references, especially Refs. 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9.
In addition to the use of sand jetting for perforating, applications include openhole jetting, cutting windows in casing, cutting
off tubing and casing and as an aid to acidizing ~see Ref. 2!.
Sand Jet Perforating in Lithuania
The search for oil in Lithuania started in 1964, under Russian
tutelage. Although the Russians, with huge oil reserves of their
own to the east, did not consider the modest finds in Lithuania
before 1990 to be commercially viable, they left suspended a
number of wells which had been tested at significant rates, some
at over 1000 B/D on natural flow. Geonafta, the state oil company
of Lithuania, then started to produce some of these old wells, via
5 3/4 in. casing set through the Cambrian sandstone reservoir at
1800 to 2000 meters below the surface, but found that most of
these wells would produce very little, even after reperforation
with explosives. As the wells had been suspended with heavy
drilling mud across open perforations, in some cases for more
than 10 yr, almost certainly the depth and degree of damage,
combined with the unusual hardness ~circa 13 000 psi ultimate
compressive strength! of the reservoir rock, precluded effective
perforation with the Russian perforating charges in use. Geonafta
were, however, successful in getting wells to flow following perforation by sand jetting, made by a contractor from the neighboring country Belarus.
In 1995, Genciu Nafta, a joint venture between Geonafta and
Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB of Sweden, worked over two
old wells in the Genciai oil field, Lithuanias largest. These workovers were trials to determine the most cost-effective approach to
J.S. Cobbett: Sand Jet Perforating Revisited

later working over all the accessible Genciai wells and also to
determine well productivities. The success of this two well program was critical to the Genciai project and to Genciu Nafta.
Though limited details of the Belarus sand jetting results were
available, it was assumed that better western explosives and perforating techniques would be effective in passing the damaged
zone and allowing these suspended wells to flow again. The two
workovers were therefore programed to use the largest readily
available, high-shot density TCP perforating guns, run on the final
completion, and perforated underbalanced. However, results were
disappointing, with the two wells together producing around 1%
of what they had when originally tested in the 1980s. Well tests
confirmed that the wells had very high skins and, following a visit
to Belarus, a contract was made for sand jetting the wells.
The sand jet perforating tool ~see Fig. 2!, fitted with two 6 mm
jet nozzles, 180 opposed at 20 cm centers, was run on a 2 7/8 in.
API tubing work string. A radioactive marker and gamma ray log
were used for depth correlation, before perforating a 30 m interval
in each well. Fresh water was used as treating fluid, as both well
pressures were below hydrostatic, with a nominal 1 lb/gal of local
sand added. Two large pump trucks, with one held in reserve,
were used to pump 188 GPM ~i.e., 94 GPM for each jet nozzle! at
a surface pressure of 3800 psi, with an estimated pressure drop of
3300 psi across the jet nozzles. Four holes per meter were made,
with 30 min pumping time at each depth ~i.e., 1 h/m!. A simple
settling tank was used on the surface with the treating fluid being
recirculated, together with a mixture of fresh and degraded treating and formation sand.
Following completion of the sand jetting, both wells were completed and initially produced together at around two thirds of what
they had on test in the 1980s, with one well producing 1000
times as much as before sand jetting ~but after reperforating with
western TCP guns! and the other 14 times ~Genciai-2 and
Genciai-6 in Table 1!. In 1996, three more old wells, and in 1998
one old well, in the Genciai field were reperforated with sand jets,
using a western pumping contractor and a well sorted 12/20 sand
as abrasive, again with good results. Production figures are not
recorded here, as two of these wells were used as water injectors
and the other two did not have valid well tests.
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1999

29

TABLE 1 TYPICAL SAND JET PERFORATING PARAMETERS

Fluid
S.G.
Sand
Sand PPG
Via
GPM/nozzle
Nozzle diam. ins
Nozzle diam. mm.
dP Nozzle, psi
HHP/nozzle
Minutes/perfn
Est.penetration
BOPD before
Via
BOPD after

Genciai-3

Genciai-2

Genciai-6

Vilkyciai-9

Brine
1.1
Local
1
2 7/8 in. tbg
42
0.177
4.5
2900
71
15
8 in.
217
Old explosive
833

Water
1.0
Local
1
2 7/8 in. tbg
84
0.236
6.0
3400
167
30
13 in.
0.9
TCPs
917

Water
1.0
Local
1
2 7/8 in. tbg
84
0.236
6.0
3400
167
30
13 in.
25
TCPs
362

Oil
0.8
12 to 20
1
1.75 in. C/T
45
0.157
4.0
4100
107
60
16 in.
400
Old S/jet
800

In 1997, Minijos Nafta, a joint venture between Geonafta and

Dansk Olie & Naturgas A/S ~DONG! of Denmark, reperforated a well with sand jets in the Vilkyciai field in Lithuania.
Though this well, Vilkyciai-9 ~see Table 1!, had already been sand
jetted by Geonafta and, at 400 BOPD, was the best producer in the
field, well tests indicated a high skin, suggesting that more aggressive sand jet perforating could improve production significantly.
This more aggressive sand jetting was achieved by pumping
for longer ~60 min, compared with 15 min previously!, by using a
well sorted ~12 to 20! sand, by using a diesel/crude oil mixture as
carrier fluid to minimize formation damage and by perforating
underbalanced, with the well still producing throughout. A specially designed sand jetting tool was run on 1.75 in. coiled tubing
through the xmas tree and ~73 mm! completion tubing, with returns and production coming up the production tubing x casing
annulus, the completion being packerless, as shown in Fig. 3. It
was apparent during the job that well production was increasing,
eventually to 800 BOPD, a doubling in rate.
Penetration
The good results from sand jet perforating suggest that the penetration with sand jets is significantly deeper than with western
TCPs. Results obtained in the field appear to be better than would
be suggested from a review of published laboratory and theoretical work ~see Refs. 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9!. For example, whereas the
sand jetting at Genciai must have penetrated deeper than 10 in.,
which is the penetration of the TCPs according to a computer
simulation, the approach of Brown and Loper ~Ref. 1! suggests a
sand jet penetration of only 3 in. through casing.
In addition to the jet velocity and hardness of the target rock,
the critical factor determining theoretical maximum penetration
(L max , i.e., after infinite jetting time! in open-hole conditions is
the diameter of the nozzle. Brown and Lopers analysis shows that
for the cased-hole condition, a further very significant effect is the
energy lost by the jet impinging on the return fluid coming out
through the restriction of the perforation through the metal casing.
Using numbers typical for the sand jetting at Genciai, Brown and
Lopers analysis suggests a theoretical maximum cased-hole penetration of only 3 in., as mentioned above, compared with a theoretical maximum open-hole penetration of 39 in. However, the
analysis for the through casing perforation assumes that the jet
nozzle is not moving relative to the casing and, hence, that the
entry hole diameter through the casing is little larger than the jet
nozzle diameter. Though this analysis would be appropriate were
a hydraulic holddown used above the sand jet perforating tool, as
30

J.S. Cobbett: Sand Jet Perforating Revisited

the 1800 m tubing work string was not anchored at Genciai, the
tubing, sand jet perforating tool and jet nozzles would have
moved continuously in response to the cyclical and other forces
resulting from the hydraulic pumping and jetting. This movement
would have created a much larger hole than with a stationary jet
nozzle, resulting in greatly reduced energy loss through the entry
hole in the casing itself and a maximum penetration near to that of
open-hole conditions. By allowing this movement, not using a
holddown allows much greater total penetration to be achieved,
though early penetration rates may be less than suggested by Refs.
1, 3, 4, 8, and 9. Some operators deliberately move the treating
string to cut slots, rather than holes, to achieve a similar result.
Another factor may be that as the intervals of sand jet perforated
in Lithuania had already been previously perforated with explo-

Fig. 3Sand jet perforating with coiled tubing.

SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1999

Fig. 5Sand jet perforation in typical Lithuanian conditions for

13 000 psi unconfined compressive strength UCS rock.

Fig. 4Perforating performance in Lithuania.

sives, the existing through-casing holes may have provided return

paths for much of the sand jetting fluid, reducing the energy loss
in through the casing. Good results have, however, been reported
~for example, in Refs. 2, 6, and 7! in wells that had not been
previously perforated.
Following the success at Vilkyciai in 1997, a review of all
available relevant data has enabled a methodology to be developed for estimating the penetration of sand jet perforating in
Lithuanian conditions. Though not rigorous, this methodology is
based on comparing production results following perforation with
western TCPs with those after sand jetting in the same wells, and
then, using the computer-estimated penetration of the TCPs as a
reference, assuming that the sand jetting penetrated significantly
deeper. Brown and Lopers theoretical approach was then used to
estimate penetrations using sand jet perforating parameters different from those in the reference wells. This suggests that Geonaftas approach ~15 min pumping time, used in Genciai-3, for
examplesee Table 1! yielded penetration of approximately 8 in.,
Genciu Naftas approach ~30 min pumping time! 13 in., and that
used at Vilkyciai ~60 min pumping time! 16 in., as illustrated in
Fig. 4. It should, however, be emphasized, that penetration is not
a function solely of pumping time, different nozzle diameters,
sand, carrier fluid, pump rates and nozzle pressure drops being
used on the different jobs, as summarized in Table 1.
The relationship between pumping time and penetration is illustrated in Fig. 5, which is based on both field results and very
limited published experimental data ~Refs. 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9! describing the length and shape of sand jetted perforations in laboratory conditions. However, most of the laboratory data is over 35
yr old, on rock targets much softer than the Lithuanian Cambrian
sandstone, using significantly lower pressures than were used in
Lithuania and for shorter pumping times. It would be desirable for
J.S. Cobbett: Sand Jet Perforating Revisited

some new laboratory tests to be made, better reflecting field conditions, as the estimates of penetration shown here are based, in
part, on extrapolation far outside the range of published laboratory
data. It is, however, not easy to design a laboratory test, or computer simulation, that models the movement of the sand jetting
tool on the end of 1800 m of 2 7/8 in. tubing, in response to the
forces resulting from the pumping and movement of the sand
jetting tool uncentralized in the casing, and to date no such test or
analysis has been made. Ideally, a casing target could be lowered
into a test well, and then this could be jetted with water, without
sand ~to limit damage to the test well!, and the size of the erosion
pit created on the target measured. This would enable a better
estimate to be made of energy loss through the casing, and, hence,
by applying the approach of Brown and Loper, of penetration.
It should also be noted that published experimental data show
that sand jetted perforation tunnels are much wider than those
created with explosives. Reference 9, for example, reports typical
sand jetted perforation tunnel diameters of 2 to 2 1/2 in. in the
rock target, via much smaller through-casing entry holes, whereas
explosively created perforation tunnels would be typically a 1/2
in. in diameter, via larger through-casing entry holes. The relative
shapes of the explosively created and sand jetted perforations tunnels are illustrated in Fig. 4 and Fig. 6. These larger perforation
tunnel diameters must enhance well productivity. Reference 9 also
reports that adding nitrogen to the sand jetting fluid greatly improves penetration, perhaps doubling early time penetration.
Productivity of Sand Jetted Wells
Of the six wells sand jetted by the author, only three ~see Table 1!
have subsequently been produced long enough to assess well productivity. From this limited field data, together with some from
wells sand jetted by Geonafta ~for which only the data from
Genciai-3 are given in Table 1, as the data available from the
others were not quantitative!, tentative conclusions on well productivity will be presented. This is of particular interest as little
else has been published on this. It should be noted that the author
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1999

31

Fig. 6Sand jet perforating of old

wells.

has not had access to data on any wells where sand jet perforating
alone was used, all the field data used here being for sand jet
reperforating.
As shown in Fig. 6, in the Genciai oil wells, the original perforations, using Russian electric-line conveyed shaped charges,
were most probably deep enough to pass all or most of the damaged zone. When the wells were tested in the 1980s, skins were
below 10, confirming that the completions were reasonably efficient. The wells were then left for a number of years with heavy
mud across open perforations. Fluid invasion continued during
this shut-in period, with the depth, and probably also degree, of
formation damage increasing. As shown in Fig. 6, though the
western TCPs probably penetrated further than the Russian perforators, this was not enough to pass the damaged zone and very
little production was realized. Sand jet perforating then passed the
damaged zone and allowed the wells to produce once more.
As shown in Fig. 7, for Genciai-2the well with the best data
qualityover half of the original productivity index ~PI! was recovered by sand jetting. Over half a million barrels have since
been produced from the well, in two years, during which time a
number of well tests have been made to enable skin and PI to be
estimated. These show clearly that the well is cleaning up over a
long period of time, the PI now being greater than when the well
was first tested in 1985, and the skin down to 2. Though the data
quality is not as good, the same prolonged and significant cleanup
was seen on the two other Genciai wells to be produced after sand
jetting. In Genciai-3, for example, this cleanup took approximately 2 yr, albeit initially at very low rates, by which time the PI
was back to 90% of what it was when it was first tested in 1986.
Cleanup of sand jetted wells takes much longer, and is much more
significant, than the cleanup of explosive perforated wells, which
typically takes only a few hours or days.
It is suggested that the skins of newly sand jet perforated wells,
in the range of 17 to 35 at Genciai, and higher at Vilkyciai, may
be due in part to the sand jet perforating itself, rather than to any
preexisting formation damage. If, as suggested above, the sand jet
perforation tunnels do extend up to 16 in. into the formation, then
they probably pass most of the damaged zone. The skin after sand
jetting may then be partly due to sand particles entrained in the
treating fluid being injected into the sand face in the perforation
tunnels at high velocity and blocking pores and pore throats.
Cleanup, by producing back these sand particles over an extended
production period, could be reasonably assumed to occur in this
instance. Other damage mechanisms could act in a similar manner. This would also suggest that explosive perforation should
32

J.S. Cobbett: Sand Jet Perforating Revisited

produce a more efficient completion ~i.e., lower skin and higher

PI! in the majority of cases where the penetration of explosives is
adequate.
Though sand jet perforating cannot penetrate as deeply as a
hydraulic frac, no comparable offset data on wells that have been
fracced are available, as no old Lithuanian wells have been
fracced.
Sand Jet Perforation Applications
Compared with explosive perforation, sand jetting is very time
consuming and will usually cost more. Sand jet perforation should
therefore be used only where deeper penetration is needed than
can be obtained with explosives. As mentioned above, this will
principally be where the formation damage is particularly deep
~and severe! and where the rock is particularly hard.

Fig. 7Genciai-2 cleanup after sand jetting.

SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1999

In the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere, there are a large

number of wells that have been suspended with heavy mud across
open perforations and which now have deep formation damage. If
there is sufficient oil present to justify it, then these wells would,
as in Lithuania, be good candidates for sand jetting. Many new
wells suffer deep, but apparently unavoidable, formation damage
during drilling and completion, forcing operators to hydraulically
fracture them or drill additional wells to obtain production targets.
As an alternative to limited fracs ~frac pac, tip screenout,
short fat fracs!, sand jet perforating could be used in some
wells, with the sand jetted perforation tunnels being prepacked
with gravel in preparation for an internal gravel pack if sand control was required. One major advantage of sand jetting, compared
with hydraulic fracturing, is that the vertical interval treated may
be closely controlled, making sand jetting much less likely to
damage the well by inadvertently fraccing into a water-bearing
interval below, or a gas-bearing interval above.
Some formations are so hard that the performance of explosive
perforators is much less than that indicated by the manufacturers
tests according to API RP-43. Whereas the Berea sandstone target
specified for RP-43 Sec. II perforator tests has an ultimate compressive strength of around 6000 psi, reservoir rock compressive
strengths exceeding 20 000 psi are common in some of the deeper
and more expensive wells now being drilled. The resulting, typically four-fold, reduction in perforation penetration can make it
impossible to perforate some wells efficiently. Again, sand jet
perforating could be a cost-efficient alternative to hydraulic fracturing or drilling additional wells.
Sand jet perforating, via coiled tubing, through the completion,
without taking a well off production is an exciting new technique,
albeit only applicable to packerless completions or wells with
completion tubing large enough for the returns to pass the coiled
tubing x production tubing annulus during sand jetting. However,
a number of deep, expensive wells in hard formations, where explosive perforation penetration is limited, meet these requirements, have high skins and could benefit from this approach.
Also, in a number of areas, particularly in the former Soviet
Union, there are old suspended wells, completed without packers,
that could be reperforated via coiled tubing, without needing a rig
for any more extensive workover, and put back on production.
Conclusion
Though not a new technique, sand jetting is little known or used
in the oil field. However, sand jetting has the capability to penetrate deeper than explosive perforators, passing deep formation
damage, and should form part of the armory of every practicing
petroleum engineer.
Nomenclature
L max 5 maximum theoretical penetration, after infinite pumping time ~as defined in Ref. 1!

J.S. Cobbett: Sand Jet Perforating Revisited

Acknowledgments
The author thanks Genciu-Nafta UAB, Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB, UAB Minijos Nafta and Dansk Olie & Naturgas A/S
for permission to publish this paper.

References
1. Brown, R.W. and Loper, J.L.: Theory of Formation Cutting Using
the Sand Erosion Process, J. Pet. Technol., 483 ~May 1961!; Trans.,
AIME 222.
2. Ousterhout, R.S.: Field Applications of Abrasive-Jetting Techniques, J. Pet. Technol., 413 ~May 1961!.
3. Pittman, F.C., Harriman, D.W., and St. John, J.C.: Investigation of
Abrasive-Laden-Fluid Method For Perforation and Fracture Initiation, J. Pet. Technol., 489 ~May 1961!; Trans., AIME 222.
4. Pekarek, J.L., Lowe, D.K., and Huitt, J.L.: Hydraulic JettingSome
Theoretical and Experimental Results, SPEJ 101 ~June 1963!;
Trans., AIME 228.
5. Usachev, P.M. et al.: Provisional Instructions on the Hydro-Sand
Jet Method of Perforation, The All-Union Inst. for Scientific Research of Oil and Gas, Moscow ~June 1967!.
6. Peters, A.D. and Henson, S.W.: New Well Completion and Stimulation Techniques Using Liquid Jet Cutting Technology, SPE paper
26583 presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
exhibition, Houston, October.
7. McCauley, T.V.: Backsurging and Abrasive Perforating To Improve
Perforation Performance, J. Pet. Technol., 1207 ~October 1972!.
8. Hydra-Jet Data Book, Halliburton Services, 3rd Ed. ~January
1978! Duncan, OK.
9. Abrasijet, Abrasive Jetting Service, Dowell Div. of the Dow
Chemical Co.; technical report ~April 1965! Tulsa, OK.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl 3 1.589 873
ft 3 3.048
gal 3 3.785 412
in. 3 2.54
in. 3 2.54
lbm 3 4.535 924
psi 3 6.894 757

E201
E203
E203
E100
E101
E201
E100

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

m3
m
m3
cm
mm
kg
kPa
SPEDC

James Cobbett is a petroleum consultant currently working

principally in well productivity, drilling, workovers and completions. He recently spent four years acting as Technical Manager for Genciu Nafta, the Lithuanian-Swedish joint venture
completing the development of Genciai, Lithuanias largest
oil field. Cobbett also gives occasional Well Productivity
Awareness Schools for BP at locations worldwide. He can be
found at cobbett@compuserve.com.

SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1999

33