An Improved Technique for Interpreting Perforating-Flow-Laboratory Results: Honoring Observed Cleanup Mechanisms
- Brenden M. Grove (Schlumberger) | Jeremy P. Harvey (Schlumberger) | Lang Zhan (Schlumberger) | David Atwood (Schlumberger)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Drilling & Completion
- Publication Date
- June 2012
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 233 - 240
- 2012. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control, 1.6.9 Coring, Fishing, 5.6.8 Well Performance Monitoring, Inflow Performance, 2.2.2 Perforating
- 1 in the last 30 days
- 487 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 10.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 30.00|
Perforating-laboratory experiments can be a useful element of field-perforating-job design. In some instances, the goal is to qualitatively compare multiple candidate perforating techniques. In others, the goal is to obtain quantitative insight into likely flow performance in the field. Although the laboratory will never perfectly replicate the downhole environment, it can yield useful results, which--if properly interpreted--can enable informed prediction of downhole-flow performance.
A traditional flow-laboratory experiment (API RP 19B 2006) yields numerous key results, four of which are required inputs to downhole-inflow simulators. These are perforation-tunnel length and diameter, crushed-zone thickness, and permeability. In the case of natural perforated completions as opposed to stimulated completions (e.g., hydraulically fractured or sand control), these parameters (in addition to other system and wellbore parameters) dictate the skin and ultimate flow performance of the completion.
Crushed-zone permeability is typically inferred from core-flow efficiency (CFE) and an assumed crushed-zone thickness. Traditionally applied, this technique can yield values that are inaccurate, and can produce misleading predictions of downhole performance more significantly.
To address this, we have developed new methods for both measuring and interpreting CFE. The new measurement technique yields CFE values that we show to be more meaningful and relevant. The new interpretation technique provides a consistent method of translating CFE to crushed-zone permeability, and is capable of accounting for the effect of partially plugged tunnels. This work clarifies and improves the link between laboratory and field performance of perforators, with the ultimate goal of increasing the value of downhole-inflow-performance predictions.
While other work is ongoing to challenge the framework of the conventional skin models, the present paper accepts these models as a premise. This work simply presents a coherent methodology of interpreting laboratory data, with the intent of generating the required inputs for skin models as they currently exist. Furthermore, it is recommended that this workflow be considered for inclusion in any revisions to the API Section 4 (API RP 19B 2006) testing protocol.
|File Size||2 MB||Number of Pages||8|
Allen, T.O. and Worzel, H.C. 1956. Productivity Method of Evaluating GunPerforating. API Drilling & Production Practice 207(1956): 112-125.
Allen, T.O. and Atterbury, J.H. Jr. 1954. Effectiveness of gun perforating.In Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and MetallurgicalEngineers: Petroleum Development and Technology 1954, Vol. 201, 8-14. NewYork:, Petroleum Branch, AIME.
API RP 19B, Recommended Practices for Evaluation of Well Perforators,second edition. 2006. Washington, DC: API.
API RP 43, Final Report Investigation of Core Orientation And PerforationDebris on Standard Perforation Flow Tests. 1962. Washington, DC: API.
Behrmann, L.A. 1996. Underbalance Criteria for Minimum Perforation Damage.SPE Drill & Compl 11 (3): 173-177. SPE-30081-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30081-PA.
Behrmann, L.A., Pucknell, J.K., Bishop, S.R., and Hsia, T.-Y. 1991.Measurement of Additional Skin Resulting From Perforation Damage. Paper SPE22809 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,6-9 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/22809-MS.
Bell, W.T., Brieger, E.F., and Harrigan Jr., J.W. 1972. LaboratoryFlow Characteristics Of Gun Perforations. J Pet Technol 24(9): 1095-1103. SPE-3444-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/3444-PA.
Bell, W.T., Sukup, R.A., and Tariq, S.M. 1995. Perforating,Vol. 16, Sec. 6.4.1-6.4.3. Richardson, Texas: Monograph Series, SPE. Bell,W.T., Sukup, R.A., and Tariq, S.M. 1995. Perforating, Vol. 16, 56-73.Richardson, Texas: Monograph Series, SPE.
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, 15-16 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30083-MS.
Bolchover, P. and Walton, I.C. 2006. Perforation Damage Removal byUnderbalance Surge Flow. Paper SPE 98220 presented at the InternationalSymposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,USA, 15-17 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/98220-MS.
Brooks, J.E. and Haggerty, D.J. 2011. Laboratory Simulation of Downhole Flowthrough a Perforation. Paper SPE 144187 presented at the SPE European FormationDamage Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 7-10 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/144187-MS.
Deo, M., Tarlq, S.M., and Halleck, P.M. 1989. Linear and Radial FlowTargets for Characterizing Downhole Flow in Perforations. SPE Prod Eng 4 (3): 295-300. SPE-16896-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/16896-PA.
Grove, B.M., Harvey, J.P., and Zhan, L. 2011. Perforation Cleanup viaDynamic Underbalance: New Understandings. Paper SPE 143997 presented at the SPEEuropean Formation Damage Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 7-10 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/143997-MS.
Halleck, P.M. and Dogulu, Y.S. 1997. The Basis And Use of the API RP43 FlowTest For Shaped-charge Oil Well Perforators. J Can Pet Technol 36 (5): 53-61. PETSOC 97-05-04. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97-05-04.
Harvey, J., Grove, B., Walton, I., and Atwood, D. 2010. FlowMeasurements in the Perforation Laboratory: Re-Thinking Core Flow Efficiency(CFE). Paper Oral presentation given presented at the 2010 InternationalPerforating Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 6-7 May.
Harvey, J.P., Kokel, P.M., Zhan, L., Grove, B.M., Moloney, S., and Atwood, D.C. 2011. Determining Perforation Parameters from Single-Shot Tests:Axial vs. Radial Flow. Paper SPE 143993 presented at the SPE European FormationDamage Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 7-10 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/143993-MS.
Heiland, J.C., Grove, B.M., Harvey, J.P., Walton, I.C., and Martin,A.J. 2009. New Fundamental Insights into Perforation-Induced Formation Damage.Paper SPE 122845 presented at the 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, 6-9 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/22810-MS.
Karakas, M. and Tariq, S.M. 1991. Semianalytical Productivity Models forPerforated Completions. SPE Prod Eng 6 (1): 73-82.SPE-18247-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/18247-PA.
Roostapour, A. and Yildiz, T. 2005. Post-Perforation Flow Models for APIRecommended Practices 19B. Paper SPE-94245-PA presented at the SPE ProductionOperations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 16-19 April. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/94245-MS.
Schlumberger. 2011. SPAN Rock User Guide, Version 9.0 (July 2011). Rosharon,Texas: Schlumberger Reservoir Completions Technology Center.
Walton, I.C. 2000. Optimum Underbalance for the Removal of PerforationDamage. Paper SPE 63108 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference andExhibition, Dallas, 1-4 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/63108-MS.