Perforation Cleanup by Means of Dynamic Underbalance: New Understanding
- Brenden M. Grove (Schlumberger) | Jeremy P. Harvey (Schlumberger) | Lang Zhan (Schlumberger)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Drilling & Completion
- Publication Date
- March 2013
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 11 - 20
- 2013. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 2.2.2 Perforating, 1.6 Drilling Operations
- 5 in the last 30 days
- 1,017 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 10.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 30.00|
Dynamic-underbalance (DUB) perforating is a completion technique that uses a perforating system engineered to create a rapid underbalance immediately upon formation perforation (within tens of milliseconds or faster). This technique--properly applied--improves well deliverability by effectively cleaning the newly created perforation tunnels, regardless of initial static pressure conditions (overbalanced, underbalanced, or balanced). The authors are engaged in a multiyear program of perforateand-flow laboratory experiments [along the lines of American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice (API RP) 19B Section 4], carefully controlling and measuring wellbore transients and measuring post-shot productivities. Experiments thus far have been limited to static balanced conditions to ensure that any cleanup observed would be attributable solely to wellbore dynamics rather than to preshot static pressure conditions. Our results provide new insight into perforation-damage and -cleanup mechanisms. We observed that a dominant source of perforation damage can be the reduction in effective flowing perforation length, and a primary mechanism of DUB cleanup is to increase this effective length. Although increasing the permeability of the crushed zone that may surround the tunnel (a conventional simplified treatment of perforation damage and cleanup) does indeed improve the productivity of real wells, the additional processes of enlarging tunnel diameter and reducing crushed-zone thickness further improve productivity. Increasing the effective tunnel length provides yet another means of productivity gain and, under many circumstances, is the dominant beneficial effect. We present productivity predictions of various downhole scenarios to demonstrate and quantify these effects. These findings indicate that the performance differential (between DUB and non-DUB techniques) at downhole conditions can be more significant than previously recognized. Future work will explore varying initial static pressure conditions (underbalance, overbalance) in conjunction with shot-time wellbore pressure transients. Work is also ongoing to probe the limits of the findings reported herein, particularly the influences of formation properties (permeability, strength, and lithology) and drilling damage.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||10|
Bartko, K., Chang, F., Behrmann, L., et al. 2007. Effective Matrix Acidizingin Carbonate Reservoir: Does Perforating Matter? Paper SPE 105022 presented atthe SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Kingdom of Bahrain, 11-14March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/105022-MS.
Baxter, D., McCausland, H., Wells, B., et al. 2007. Overcoming EnvironmentalChallenges Using Innovative Approach of Dynamic Underbalance Perforating. PaperSPE 108167 presented at the SPE Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 4-7September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/108167-MS.
Behrmann, L.A. 1996. Underbalance Criteria for Minimum Perforation Damage.SPE Drill & Compl 11 (3): 173-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30081-PA.
Behrmann, L., Hughes, K., Johnson, I., et al. 2002. New UnderbalancedPerforating Technique Increases Completion Efficiency and Eliminates CostlyAcid Stimulation. Paper SPE 77364 presented at the SPE Annual TechnicalConference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September-2 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/77364-MS.
Bird, K., and Dunmore, S. 1995. Optimising Perforation Performance for theArmada Gas Condensate Development. Paper SPE 30083 presented at the SPEEuropean Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 15-16 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30083-MS.
Bolchover, P., and Walton, I. 2006. Perforation Damage Removal byUnderbalance Surge Flow. Paper SPE 98220 presented at the SPE InternationalSymposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,15-17 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/98220-MS.
Chang, F., Kågeson-Loe, N., Walton, I., et al. 2004. Perforating inOverbalance—Is It Really Sinful? SPE Drill & Compl 19(3): 173-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/82203-PA.
Chang, F., Mathisen, A., Kågeson-Loe, N., et al. 2005. Recommended Practicefor Overbalanced Perforating in Long Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE 94596presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, Sheveningen, TheNetherlands, 25-27 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/94596-MS.
Faisal, A., Khalil, H., Salsman, A., et al. 2006. New Perforating TechniqueImproves Well Productivity and Operational Efficiency. Paper SPE 101278presented at the SPE Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition andConference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 5-8 November.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/101278-MS.
Flores, J. 2005. Perforating for Zero Skin: A Study of ProductivityImprovement in Ecuador. Paper SPE 95859 presented at the SPE Annual TechnicalConference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 9-12 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/95859-MS.
Fluent, version 12.0. 2009. Canonsburg, Pennsylvania: ANSYS.
Grove, B., Harvey, J., Zhan, L., et al. 2011. Translating PerforationLaboratory Results to the Downhole Environment. SPE Drill & Compl 27 (2): 233-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/143998-PA.
Halleck, P. 1997. Recent Advances in Understanding Perforator Penetrationand Flow Performance. SPE Drill & Compl 12 (1): 19-26.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/27981-PA.
Halleck, P., Atwood, D., and Black, A. 1992. X-Ray CT Observations of FlowDistribution in a Shaped-Charge Perforation. Paper SPE 24771 presented at theSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4-7 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/24771-MS.
Harvey, J., Grove, B., Walton, I., et al. 2010. Flow Measurements in thePerforation Laboratory: Re-Thinking Core Flow Efficiency (CFE). Oralpresentation IPS-10-15 given at the International Perforating Symposium, TheWoodlands, Texas, 6-7 May.
Harvey, J., Grove, B., and Zhan, L. 2012a. Stressed Rock PenetrationCorrelation. Paper SPE 151846 presented at the SPE International Symposium andExhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15-17 February.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/151846-MS.
Harvey, J., Kokel, P., Atwood, D. 2012b. Visualization of Fluid Flow into aPerforation Tunnel. Oral presentation IPS-12-25 given at the InternationalPerforating Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, 25-27 April.
Heiland, J., Grove, B., Harvey, J., et al. 2009. New Fundamental Insightsinto Perforating-Induced Formation Damage. Paper SPE 122845 presented at theSPE 8th European Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands,27-29 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/122845-MS.
Hsia, T.-Y., and Behrmann, L.A. 1991. Perforating Skin as a Function of RockPermeability and Underbalance. Paper SPE 22810 presented at the SPE AnnualTechnical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 6-9 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/22810-MS.
Karacan, C., Grader, A., and Halleck, P. 2001. The Mapping of PermeabilityDamage Around Perforation Tunnels. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 123 (3): 205-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1386389.
Karakas, M., and Tariq, S.M. 1991. Semianalytical Productivity Models forPerforated Completions. SPE Prod Eng 6 (1): 73-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/18247-PA.
Liu, Z., and Peden, J. 1988. Effects of Perforation Flow Geometry onEvaluation of Perforation Flow Efficiency. Paper SPE 17672 presented at the SPEOffshore South East Asia Show, Singapore, 2-5 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/17672-MS.
Martin, A., Clark, D., and Stirton, G. 2005. Dynamic UnderbalancedPerforating on a Mature North Sea Field. Paper SPE 93638 presented at the SPEEuropean Formation Damage Conference, Sheveningen, The Netherlands, 25-27 May.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/93638-MS.
Medina, M., Morantes, G., Morales, J., et al. 2008. Dynamic UnderbalancedPerforating Application Increases Productivity in the Mature High-PermeabilityGas Reservoirs of Santa Ana Field, Venezuela. Paper SPE 112488 presented at theSPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 13-15 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/112488-MS.
Minto, D., Falxa, P., Manalu, D., et al. 2005. Dynamic UnderbalancedPerforating System Increases Productivity and Reduces Costs in East KalimantanGas Field: A Case Study. Paper SPE 97363 presented at the SPE/IADC Middle EastDrilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Dubai, United Arab Emirates,12-14 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97363-MS.
Pizzolante, I., Grinham, S., Xiang, T., et al. 2006. Over BalancedPerforating Yields Negative Skins in Layered Reservoir. Paper SPE 104099presented at the SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition inChina, Beijing, China, 5-7 December. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/104099-MS.
Rodriguez, H., Molina, O., Salazar, A., et al. 2006. New CustomizedReperforating With New Technologies for Optimal Field Drainage and ProductivityEnhancement: East Venezuela Applications. Paper SPE 103070 presented at the SPEAnnual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 24-27September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/103070-MS.
Stenhaug, M., Erichsen, L., Doornbosch, F., et al. 2003. A Step Change inPerforating Technology Improves Productivity of Horizontal Wells in the NorthSea. Paper SPE 84910 presented at the SPE International Improved Oil RecoveryConference in Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20-21 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84910-MS.
Stutz, H., and Behrmann, L. 2004. A Dynamic Under Balanced PerforatingEliminates Near Wellbore Acid Stimulation in Low-Pressure Weber Formation.Paper SPE 86543 presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition onFormation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18-20 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/86543-MS.
Subiar, S., Graham, C., Walton, I., et al. 2004. Underbalance PressureCriteria for Perforating Carbonates. Paper SPE 86542 presented at the SPEInternational Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,Louisiana, 18-20 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/86542-MS.
Tiribelli, A., Minneci, G., Daoud, A., et al. 2007. Productivity IncreaseUsing the Combination of Formation Isolation Valve and Dynamic UnderbalancedPerforation. Paper SPE 106400 presented at the SPE European Formation DamageConference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 30 May-1 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/106400-MS.
Walton, I. 2000. Optimum Underbalance for the Removal of Perforation Damage.Paper SPE 63108 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference andExhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/63108-MS.
Walton, I., Johnson, A., Behrmann, L., et al. 2001. Laboratory ExperimentsProvide New Insights into Underbalanced Perforating. Paper SPE 71642 presentedat the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,30 September-3 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/71642-MS.