How To Perforate
How To Perforate
February 2006
February 2006
This module will look specifically at the actual requirement to perforate, and once the
decision has been made to do so, how to get it right. It will involve looking at several factors,
including the way the well is drilled, the reservoir itself and the proposed equipment to be
used.
Why Do We Perforate ?
February 2006
The main objective of perforating is to establish optimum communication between the well
bore and formation after the casing has been cemented in place. We will look specifically at
the effects of formation damage, which needs to be overcome and the effects that are
induced and seen commonly in wells. The process of creating holes in the casing that pass
through the cement sheath and extend some depth into the formation. Penetrations can
range from essentially zero to many inches depending on the following:
Once created, the perforation tunnel must overcome the barrier presented by the cement,
the steel liner or casing and nay damage created by drilling. The perforation itself will create
damage in the form of a crushed zone and so this must also be breached.
Well Productivity
February 2006
Reservoir Properties – it is the reservoir that is being perforated so clearly the target rock,
its location, and geological properties must be understood
Well bore Conditions – these vary globally and sometimes across individual fields. In
situations where HPHT (high pressure, high temperature ) conditions are to be found, major
planning considerations kick in. The procurement, testing and qualification of equipment
must be considered, budgeted for and scheduled into the job planning
Perforating Objectives – objectives must be clear before you start, and preferably well
documented so that decisions taken throughout the process can be audited if required.
Where there is a well test to be carried out, objectives will focus undoubtedly around well
appraisal and data acquisition, and this will be reflected in job design. Where gravel packing
is to be carried out, guns and job emphasis will be different, for instance.
Service company products & competencies
The above is by no means exhaustive and is merely meant to illustrate the many points that
need consideration.
pR − pwf =
141.2qBo µ re 1
kh
ln rw − 2 + S ( )
February 2006
Pe
P
Damaged zone
Pressure drop
due to skin
P’wf
Q µo
∆P = S re
2π ko h
Pwf
rw rd r
February 2006
From the time the drill bit enters the reservoir until the well creases production, the formation
is exposed to a series of fluids and operations that can severely affect its productivity: any
reduction in well performance is known as formation damage.
Formation damage can be caused by any process that reduces permeability of producing
formations
-drilling
-completions
-work over
-production (fines movement due to excessive draw down)
-water injection
Pe
P
Damaged zone
P’wf Perforations are designed to bypass damaged zone
re
Pwf
rw rd r
February 2006
When properly engineered, a perforated completion will provide a high efficiency flow path
between the wellbore and the virgin reservoir.
In some cases, this process is so efficient that the resulting productivity is higher than
predicted by the Darcy equation for the ideal case. The completion has “negative skin” and
effectively increased the wellbore radius.
-minimise the depth of the damaged zone as it makes it easier to design the perforations
-know what the actual damage depth is
Skin Components
pR − pwf =
141.2qBµ re 1
kh
ln rw − 2 + S ( )
Which parameters are affected by Perforating Design?
February 2006
The total skin factor can be decomposed in many different components. Skin can be
assigned to each factor that affects the ideal flow performance in the near well bore area.
The list above is not exhaustive. Many equations that describe these effects have been
developed by various authors.
Skin Components
pR − pwf =
141.2qBµ re 1
kh
ln rw − 2 + S ( )
February 2006
Perforating design may affect the effective well bore radius – that is why we can have wells
performing better than expected!
February 2006
Very obviously, our chosen perforation must extend into the virgin formation. If not the well
productivity will be less than ideal and hence the well will be impaired.
30 ft
15 ft
6 ft
150 ft 15 ft
75 ft
SSC ==++17
17 SSC ==++15
15 SSC ==++99
C C C
February 2006
The strategy chosen and particular method of perforating chosen can influence significantly
the resultant skin.
Intuitively we can understand that the flow pattern in the reservoir will be distorted as a result
of partial completion. This will induce an additional pressure drop hence impairment.
The reason for only perforating or completing part of the reservoir interval may be as follows:
-requirement for minimum stand-off from fluid contacts to avoid premature gas or water
breakthrough
-requirement to group perforated interval in specific intervals as a precaution for future shut-
off requirements
-equipment limitations e.g. maximum gun length.
r
w
Lp : Penetration Lp
depth
Hp : Density
rw : Wellbore radius α
Hp
α : Phasing
kv/kh : Perm. anisotropy
February 2006
The selection of shot phasing and shot density play a major part in the reduction of skin
A gun phased at zero degrees will penetrate the casing and reservoir effectively in a vertical
line down the inside of the casing. The resultant flow INTO the well bore from the reservoir
will be from a line of convergent flow creating a secondary of pseudo skin. This may be
further influenced by the flow rate which creates a rate sensitive skin.
An even shot distribution in to the formation allows for a balanced or even flow regime
radially distributed throughout the wellbore.
2- 3 m/s
1- 2 m/s
.5- 1 m/s
.1- .5 m/s
.01- .1 m/s
February 2006
A consequence of the radial flow process is that flow velocities increase as fluids approach
the well bore. In high rate wells flowing from a limited length interval turbulent flow may
occur.
The perforating pattern will have an effect on the onset of turbulent conditions.
This will typically be the case of a high productive vertical or deviated well completed with
gravel packs across limited height intervals (e.g. deepwater Gulf of Mexico)
Turbulent flow effects will not be seen in horizontal wells due to the extremely large inflow
area.
Equations ofr calculating turbulent flow effects are shown in the following slide
As mentioned earlier, with convergence (in zero degree phased guns) and at higher rates,
we see what is referred to as rate sensitive skin. Convergence of flow through a limited or
restricted number of holes can create a pseudo or rate sensitive skin in addition to skins
created by drilling and perforating itself.
Minimising Skin
In order to minimise skin, several actions can be taken in an attempt to reduce the well bore
, reservoir and perforating effects. Some of these actions play a key role in the planning and
well productivity estimates, that we as PT’s make prior to the job.
February 2006
When starting to design a perforating job, perhaps a logical route is to consider the formation
itself, the damage created by drilling the well, and finally the prevailing well bore conditions.
It is matching the optimal gun system to these conditions that will result in the best results.
As we have already stated, perforating is carried out to re establish the flow conduit from the
reservoir, into the well bore itself. In doing so, we have to penetrate the cement and steel
“barrier” presented by our cased hole, but we also need to overcome any damaged zone
created by the invasion of drilling fluids.
We should not forget either that perforating itself will cause damage in the form of a crushed
zone which subsequently creates a near well bore skin effect, which we have to overcome
and penetrate. This particular damage can be mitigated with “under-balanced” perforating.
This involves having a lower well bore pressure than that seen in the reservoir. Once fired,
the guns create the perforation tunnel and flow path from reservoir to well bore and expose
reservoir and well to a pressure surge created by the differential. It is optimising this
concept that surges the perforations and allows the crushed zone to be removed, or at the
very least, partially removed.
Each of the factors noted above need to be reviewed and will play a key role in the selection
of the gun system that is to be used.
Virgin Reservoir
February 2006
In considering the reservoir, decisions on the type of gun and shot configuration maybe
affected for example where total anisotropy prevails, (so standard shots will suffice),
however where a complex laminated formation exists, we would aim to shoot the reservoir
with as many shots throughout a vertical plane as possible, thus a gun configured using a
helical charge pattern in the vertical plane would be optimal so that as many laminations as
possible were shot. Conversely, where a major fracture matrix is encountered, deep
penetrating charges would be required to ensure that as many as possible fractures were
intersected and shot.
In order for the PT to be able to run PROSPER to establish the optimal or ideal delivery, the
following formation inputs will be required:
Formation K
Kv / kh
Damage zone K and thick
Reservoir thickness
Drainage area
Dietz shape factor
Horizontal dist from well to reservoir edge (drainage boundary)
Fractures presence
February 2006
Virtually every sandstone reservoir contains significant amounts of shale. The presence of
shale influences the transport properties of the system and is a consideration in designing
perforated completions. Increased shot density is effective in improving productivity.
February 2006
Many reservoirs have one or more sets of natural fractures that provide high effective
permeability even when the matrix permeability is low. The productivity of perforated
completions in these systems depends on the hydraulic communication between the
perforations, and the fracture network and varies with the type, orientation and interval of
fractures.
Perforation parameters have variable significance in different fracture systems. Here we see
the importance of fracture block size in determining productivity.
February 2006
Invasion of the mud and cement filtrates into the formation during drilling creates a zone of
lower effective permeability around the well bore. Similarly, during the perforating process, a
“crushed zone” of reduced permeability is created around the perforation itself. The damage
caused by drilling and the crushed zone may significantly affect the flow efficiency of a
perforated completion. This diagram shows the effect of a damaged zone surrounding the
well bore on the productivity of a perforated completion. Significant reduction in productivity
occurs if the perforations do not extend beyond the damaged zone. Even for perforations
that do not penetrate farther, the damaged zone reduces the effective penetration length.
For situations where there is significant damage, the perforation length should be greater
than the width of the damage !
Although a crushed zone surrounding the perforation is seen in surface tests, there is only
limited evidence as to the extent of permeability impairment in a down hole scenario.
In laboratory experiments, the thickness and the permeability damage of the crushed zone
appear to be determined by the type of shaped charge, the formation type, the underbalance
used and the clean up conditions.
Wellbore Conditions
Perforating Debris
Crushed Zone
The picture above represents a perforation tunnel after shooting under overbalanced
conditions. The perforation is surrounded by a crushed zone created by the pressure wave
generated by the shaped charge jet. The crushed zone has reduced permeability leading to
impairment unless it is removed. The jet leaves the tunnel filled with debris consisting of
pulverised rock, casing and cement, shaped charge material and explosion by-products.
Perforating underbalance i.e. with the bottom hole pressure lower than reservoir pressure
provides an effective means of preventing plugged perforations and reduced productivity.
This can be achieved by reducing the hydrostatic head in the wellbore either by the use of a
low density borehole fluid (e.g. diesel or nitrogen) or by reducing the height of the of the
hydrostatic column. Various operational methods are employed to achieve this.
February 2006
The prevailing down hole environment when perforating takes place is important.
Often perforating may take place when well pressure is just in excess of the reservoir pressure,
known as “over balanced”. This maybe done to simply allow perforating to take place without
inducing well fluids to be driven into the reservoir under pressure. Subsequently flowing the well
would be planned to clean up and dislodge any perforation based damage. This maybe carried
out on long highly deviated wells for example where invasion of well fluids is not desired in the
reservoir. Once perforated, TCP guns would be removed, a completion installed and the well
opened up for a clean up
More common is an “under balanced” environment whereby the reservoir pressure prior to
perforating exceeds that of the well bore. Control of under balance is frequently done with
cushions of fluid, partial cushions or nitrogen, for example. Once on depth, guns are fired and
the incumbent pressure differential induces a local surge in the well at the formation so that a
clean up is promoted and debris and the crushed zone created when perforations are created,
get removed under the dynamic draw down created. Under balance can be controlled and
manipulated both with applied pressure or fluid weights to maximise the local effect.
Finally, “extreme over balanced” perforating is a concept that was introduced in the 90’s and
applies a concept that sees pressure held on the well before perforating takes place. This
pressure gradient exceeds the fracture gradient and once detonated, and perforations created,
the applied pressure is the forcibly driven into the perforation and reservoir thereby creating a
localised fracture and enhancing the localised permeability. This technique can be used with
various acid treatments and frac fluids that are chased down the well if spotted correctly before
perforating.
Choosing the right down hole environment will optimise the job and deliver what is hoped is a
high quality reservoir response.
10000
1000
Underbalance General
Oil
Gas
100
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Per meabilit y (md )
Minimum underbalance: dP =
2900/(k.36)
February 2006 From: Tariq, SPE 20636
Slide No. 23 Production Technology Foundation Course
Perforating underbalance i.e. with the bottom hole pressure lower than reservoir pressure
provides an effective means of preventing plugged perforations and reduced productivity.
This can be achieved by reducing the hydrostatic head in the wellbore either by the use of a
low density borehole fluid (e.g. diesel or nitrogen) or by reducing the height of the of the
hydrostatic column. Various operational methods are employed to achieve this.
The maximum drawdown which can be applied will be determined by the collapse
pressures of the casing, tubing and completion and formation and is generally in the
order of 500 – 1500 psi.
Experimental data suggests that increasing underbalance pressure will initially improve the
efficiency of a perforation. This improvement continues until a pressure is reached beyond
which little improvement results. This aspect is covered in more detail in the Perforating
Manual, pp 55-59
When looking at which system to use, an understanding of the down hole conditions is
required, as well as a knowledge of conditions at the reservoir.
The temperatures and pressure will tell us what ratings the perforating guns need to with
stand.
Explosives are sensitive to temperature and time, while o-rings that seal guns, and drill stem
test equipment are affected by sour gas and fluid additives if corrosive.
Shot Geometry
February 2006
There are several factors that are regarded as fundamental when choosing a gun for the
task. These will affect and govern how the charge and gun perform.
A gun’s penetration into the target rock, and the entrance hole size characterise its unique
performance under given conditions. In situations where this knowledge is vital for a down
hole understanding of delivery, charge capabilities and / or for modelling input for
productivity modelling, gun and charge systems should always be tested under laboratory
conditions, either into actual reservoir core, or…… pseudo core which reflects as best as
possible the target rock under consideration
It is through the perforation tunnel that hydrocarbons are produced. Its length will dictate
what length of formation is opened up and it entrance hole will dictate the conduit through
which they flow into the well bore. A clear understanding of these distinguishing
characteristics is vital for you to plan and model any well performance parameters
The relative importance of geometric factors when perforating depends upon the
heterogeneities in a natural consolidated reservoir.
Above we can see that for an ideal case of no crushed zone and no damaged zone, in an
isotropic formation, shot density and phasing play a major role in optimising productivity. It
is apparent that when combined with shot density, angular phasing improves the wells
performance. Productivity increases significantly when phase angles above zero degrees
are used.
• Matching perforation
performance to well
deliverability is important
• An understanding of
charge performance is
vital
• Work shows that hole
diameter has a minor
affect on productivity
when taken in
combination with shot
density
February 2006
February 2006
The term phasing refers to the angular separation between shaped charges when viewed in
plan.
February 2006
Optimal phasing can vary between job tasks. Where sand prevention is required, the actual
perforation phasing will depend on the formation properties and well bore radius and the
chosen shot density.
One new method developed by Schlumberger proposes a design process that maximises
the distances L1, L2 and L3 as shown on the diagram. The goal is that for a given shot
density, one preserves the intervening formation as much as possible without compromising
flow rate per perforation.
February 2006
Clearance can be characterised in two ways, “in gun” clearance or “stand-off” and “gun to casing” clearance.
Stand off is usually designed to allow adequate space for the collapse of the liner and jet formation prior to
the liner hitting the interior wall of the gun. The gun to casing clearance usually does not have a significant
effect on the penetration until the clearance exceeds approximately 30% of the gun diameter.
Although clearance has a relatively small effect on the penetration of a big hole charge, it has a large effect
on the hole size. This can affect the total area open to flow as well as the perforation tunnel volume.
This slide shows a typical entrance hole size versus clearance curve for a big hole charge. Optimum
performance is achieved when the gun shot is at the centre of the well bore. This corresponds to position C.
At this position, the entrance hole is largest, the total area open to flow is greatest and the holes have
consistent diameters. If a psoitioning device is not used, it is possible to have a situationin which the gun is
shot at minimum clearance (gun touches the casing) or maximum clearance (cross-casing shot). This is
shown by positions A and E respectively.
Gun stand off from the well ID is an important factor for two reasons when planning the well
Gun Recovery – where gun recovery is required, or gun drop not possible, consideration has to be given for
removal. When fired guns will swell so their OD before and after firing must be taken into consideration.
Guns will swell more in a gaseous environment. Gun swell data is available from service company
catalogues and should be noted. If tolerances are too tight, and stand off minimal, debris may well get
lodged between the gun and casing and prevent the gun from being removed. If guns are to be mechanically
fished using over-shots, then gun stand off and matching the gun to the particular ID needs to be reviewed to
ensure the correct fishing gear can be deployed
Gun Performance – in order to maximise the gun performance down hole, the gun to casing ID needs to be
at a level whereby the shaped charges can perform to their optimum level. The schematic shows clearly that
hole diameter created in the casing changes as the stand off increases, so an optimum stand off does exist
for a particular gun, in a specific casing. This should be considered when running small guns through tubing
and shooting into large ID casing. A result might be a large hole and little penetration. As shown.
February 2006
If a gun gets stuck after perforating operations, it is normal practice to try to fish using a
washpipe. Obviously there must be enough clearance between the gun (accounting for
some swelling) and the casing. The above shows clearly the relation ship between gun and
casing geometry when applied to fishing operations.
The clearance required for contingency fishing operations imposes a limit to gun size for a
given casing size and weight. Service companies will provide detailed guidelines on this –
see next slide
Wash Pipe
Gun
February 2006
February 2006
This table gives an idea of the fishing equipment required for particular popular gun sizes
As a Production Technologist, you will have several design tools available to you in order to assist
you and help you understand what capabilities the well has. In particular there is PROSPER, and
now SPOT. You will be familiar with PROSPER from work done elsewhere so should be aware of
its capabilities and deliverables. PROSPER is able to estimate the well deliverability or productivity.
One of its inputs relates to the down hole performance of the vendors shaped charges and normally
this is provided for you by the service company representative. He or she will get this information
from the in-house proprietary software used as their sales tool. These software packages, for
examples SPAN from Schlumberger and PerfPro from Halliburton use as the basis for their
downhole predictions, API Section 1 data in cement. Manipulation of charge performance data then
iterates a possible down hole performance.
It has now been shown that significant error exists in this method. Using such
data in PROSPER will result in over-optimistic productivity numbers.
The Shell Perforating Optimization Tool or SPOT is a new tool being developed within Shell.
SPOTLite, a limited functionality tool is however available for training purposes and will allow you to
choose guns from a database and calculate the perforating performance at downhole conditions. It
will be introduced to you here, and must be used as the first option when trying to collate and evolve
performance criteria for charges which is then to be used as PROSPER input.
Optimization of perforating to meet productivity goals is a prime deliverable of the PT, and as such
you should use the best data available to you. Inputs to any predictive software needs to be as
accurate as possible to ensure whatever estimations of productivity are generated, are the best
reflection of what is possible. Its is for this reason, that information provided from SPAN and PerfPro
should be treated with extreme caution.
Designing the best or optimal perforating job, more often than not, is a compromise based
on technical and operational limitations.
Iterations are required to evolve what has to be the best deliverable solution for the situation
at hand
Often the “ideal” solution may not be feasible or possible due to operational or logistic
limitations, therefore it is vital that the PT is fully aware of what is possible, and what is not,
so that that it can be compared to what is executed and what is finally achieved so the level
of success can be benchmarked.
Selection of the final operational solution will undoubtedly involve a comparative assessment
of different methods with a resultant sensitivity analysis on the results achievable
Introduction - SPOT
• SPOT is:
– An independent design tool for selecting and evaluating
perforating systems.
– Input: Log data (K, f, UCS) and gun system
– Output: Well performance - IPR
• Key Dates
– Project started May 2005,
– Spreadsheet (Excel) prototype to Logica for coding Oct 2005,
– Global release planned for March 2006
– Spreadsheet (Excel) Expert user available Oct 2005.
– SPOTLite: limited functionality spreadsheet Jan 2006
February 2006
SPOT is;
-A software tool to allow PT’s to become familiar with the available perforating gun/shaped
charge combinations and to evaluate their performance relative to each other. The soft ware
requires various sets of inputs – well information, reservoir data, PVT data , drilling data
which are use to generate, in combination with shaped charge performance data, the
primary output which is an IPR for each guns/shaped charge combination.
Features:
-A key feature of SPOT is its ability to model at the resolution of each perforation. If log data
is available for input, estimates of the invaded zone and inflow performance of the
perforations can be made in order to generate anticipated production profiles across the
perforated interval
Database Access
February 2006
SPOTLite Functionality
February 2006
A simplified “SPOT” model has been built for training purposes. The objective was to provide
only the following functionality:
This tool can be downloaded as an Excel spreadsheet from this course environment
(SPOT-V1-Training.xls).
Features:
dBase Access
Data entry forms Outputs:
Graphic Outputs -Gun Type/Size/SPF/Phasing
Log data entry -Recommended Underbalance
Single Analysis Run
-Theoretical Performance
-P v’s Q (IPR)
-Flow Profile
Beginner Decisions -DoP v’s Invasion Profile
•Deployment logic -Simple business case
-Alternatives for ‘Expert’ Analysis
February 2006
Beginner Functionality.
Inputs include key well information, completion details, fluid properties and if available log
data. Mean reservoir parameters are also input to allow analysis if no log data is available.
Outputs include details of the gun type, size, SPF, phasing etc with the recommended
underbalance to be used. Theoretical performance of the chosen system is generated as
indicated.
The only real decision that the user has to make is how to deploy the chosen gun system.
February 2006
Expert Functionality
Inputs are identical to ‘Beginner’ with exception that should API Section IV data be available
more accurate determinations can be performed.
Outputs are also identical to the ‘Beginner’ except comparative analysis can be performed to
establish the alternative perforating scenarios.
The ‘Expert’ not only has to decide on the deployment logic but also has to make decisions
on the options that have been generated. For example the use of a slickline deployed
system may contractually allow the use of a different vendor with an an improved gun
performance.
SPOT - Methodology
Feedback loop to change well info inputs or choose different gun systems
User enters well information User views Vendor Data Input: User can calculate a business
1. Units 1. Choose type of guns (thru 1. User chooses a vendor case. Value of Information
2. Fluid Loss data tubing or casing) 2. Chooses tradename calculation.
3. Field data 2. Choose size of gun 3. Chooses shots/ft
4. Drilling fluid data 4. Chooses phasing
5. Completion details Output: Vendor listing of all
(tubing/casing) information related to type an d OUTPUT
size of gun 1. Section 1 penetration length (PL)
and hole diameter (DH)
2. Estimated section 4 PL and DH
3. Perforation Skin
4. Total skin
5. Plots of:
1. Invasion profile
2. Reduction in PI
February 2006 3. Penetration length
Slide No. 41 Production Technology Foundation Course
SPOT - Differentiation
• SPOT calculation
methodology
– Inputs: Htot
Log-data (Perm, Por, UCS)
Calculations depend on log
data resolution.
Drilling process depth on
invaded zone calculations Htot i
Hp
Downhole Depth of
Penetration calculated from
Section 1 data and
Terratek correlations
Crushed zone permeability
model.
Calculates Q from each
perforated section
February 2006
In comparison SPOT calculates incremental PIs based on detailed log information, which
generates estimates of invasion depth and individual perforation penetration.
The application of crushed zone permeability reduction models provides incremental flow
calculation to be performed for each perforation depth unit/interval.
Well Information
February 2006
Vendor Database
February 2006
Vendor Database
Subsets of Vendor Options selected by Gun Type and Gun OD
API Section I data is presented
Analysis
February 2006
Analysis
After selecting an appropriate set of guns/charge combinations from the vendor Database an
analysis of specific sub-set can be performed.
Step 1 – Choose Gun Vendor and gun/shaped charge combination
Step 2 – Run analysis
Step 3 – Review Outputs, both textural and graphical
Step 4 – Make decisions
Plots
Plot 2: Plot 4:
PI Profile Porosity
Permeability
Plot 1:
Bit Size,
Invasion Depth
Penetration Plot 5:
Rock Strength
Plot 3:
Prouction Profile
Caution: All plots are from .xls Beta Version. Not all will be available in final Logica Version
February 2006
Example Plots
Plot 1 – Invasion Profiling modeling output; showing bit size, invasion profile and maximum
and minimum perforation penetration versus depth. Note: penetration is not a single value of
the entire interval.
Plot 2 – PI profile (now removed)
Plot 3 – Production Profile , which can be compared to PLT survey resulyts after perforarting
Plot 4 – Porosity and permeability plot
Plot 5 – Rock strength
February 2006
Data gathering will form an important part of this task you will undertake
You will typically be required to both understand the inputs and their overall influence on any effects that
are seen on job design. Certain criteria exert considerable influences on the end result.
Carrying out detailed design will allow you to refine the perforating design and evolve a nominal solution.
Final design work is often a compromise but is always an iteration of several attempts.
Inputs that you require for PROSPER can be divided into those based around the reservoir, and those
related to the gun and its charges. By changing the gun design, you will hopefully notice the effect on the
reservoir productivity.
The data inputs you will need to secure include the following;
RESERVOIR INPUTS
•Reservoir vertical thickness ● Well bore radius
•Drainage area ● Shape factor
•Formation vertical permeability ratio ● Local vertical permeability ratio
•Vertical depth to top of reservoir ● Reservoir permeability
•Horizontal distance from well to edge of the reservoir
February 2006