SPE 68144

Estimation of Skin for High Deliverability Gas Well Tests

Hani M. Elshahawi, Khaled H. Gad, Schlumberger Oilfield Services

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show held in
Bahrain, 1720 March 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
In general, any restriction to flow that causes a distortion
of the flow lines from being perfectly normal to the borehole
direction would result in positive skin. As a result, the skin
factor computed from well testing is a widely used indicator of
the overall flow efficiency of a given well. This is
theoretically valid, but often, a high positive skin indicated
from a well test is assumed synonymous with a large extent of
near-wellbore formation damage and is, therefore, frequently
used as a criterion to perform stimulation treatment meant to
enhance the well productivity. This latter practice is generally
not valid since the skin factor computed from a well test is, in
reality, a composite variable that is not merely a function of
near-wellbore damage. This skin factor is also a function of
parameters such as perforation geometry, well deviation,
partial completion, and other phase and rate dependent effects.
Therefore, the skin computed from a well test must first be
broken down into its constituent components in order to
determine the "true" near-wellbore skin. Moreover, the skin
and permeability values computed from a well test are so
intimately related that an error in one directly impacts the
other. Typically, additional input data would also need to be
integrated in any given permeability-skin model in order to
reduce the computational uncertainty. Only after proper
modeling, can an appropriate stimulation treatment be
selected. This is particularly important for high-deliverability
gas wells, for which the formation damage-related skin often
makes up only a small portion of the total well test-measured
skin.
This paper outlines a methodology that can be used to
compute the various skin components as well as representative
values of the average formation permeability from a well test.

Several examples from gas wells are presented to demonstrate

the utility of this methodology.
Introduction to the Concept of Skin
Impaired productivity of perforated completions, generally
attributed to formation damage, has always been a major
concern for oil companies. Formation damage can be defined
as any barrier within the confines of the near wellbore
reservoir or wellbore completion interval that restricts the
natural production of formation fluids. The productivity, or
efficiency, of a completion can be defined in terms of one or
both of the following:
1.Productivity ratio: As a ratio of the completion systems
flow rate to an ideal openhole flow rate. This is sometimes
called completion factor.
2.Skin factor: As a measure of the actual pressure drop across
a completion system compared with the ideal pressure drop
predicted by Darcys Law for the same steady state flow rate.
The two definitions are equivalent and are related by the
following expression:

J=

qp
q OH

r
= ln e
rw

re

ln + S T
rw

where J=productivity ratio; qOH=flow from an ideal open hole

completion; qp= flow from the completion system; re=drainage
radius, ft; rw=wellbore radius, ft; and ST = total skin.
The skin factor definition of flow efficiency is preferred for
quantitative analysis as it permits estimation of discrete
elements that make up the total skin. The skin factor is used to
account for the additional pressure drop resulting from the
resistance to flow caused by near-wellbore damage. The total
skin effect can be mathematically expressed as follows:

S = S D + S c + + S P + S pseudo
where SD is the (formation) damage skin, SC+ is the skin due
to partial completion and slant, and Sp is the perforation effect.

H. ELSHAHAWI, K. GAD

All pseudo skins are grouped within the summation sign and
include phase and rate-dependent skins. Its important to note
that the effects of the discrete elements of skin are often
compounded and not simply additive. In particular, the
damage and perforation skins combine in a non-linear manner
to give a composite perforation/damage skin that is very much
dependent on whether or not the perforations bypass the
damaged zone.
The complex interaction of multiple factors precludes simple
global solutions to designing or analyzing well completions.
Careful analysis of the various elements and their respective
contributions to total skin is fundamental to quantifying total
skin. The following is a brief description of each component
and a listing of the value computed for it.
Partial Completion and Slant Skin (Sc+):
Wells are often partially completed such that the height that is
open to flow is smaller than the reservoir height. This is
known as partial penetration and can occur as a result of a
poor perforation job or by deliberate under-completion in to
retard or avoid coning effects in limited-entry wells. In both
cases, partial penetration decreases well productivity. If the
well is not completed at the middle of the reservoir height, the
partial completion effect will be aggravated further.
Most wells do not penetrate the producing formation
perpendicularly. Instead, there is an angle between the plane
normal to the formation and the well axis, such as when a
vertical well penetrates a dipping formation or when a
directionally drilled well penetrates a horizontal formation.
This well deviation with respect to the formation results in
increased productivity because an increased producing
interval area is exposed to flow. This increase in productivity
results in a negative skin effect.
Perforation Skin (Sp):
The major geometric parameters that influence perforation
skin are the effective shot density (actual number of producing
perforations per foot); perforation penetration into the formation, angular shot phasing, and perforation diameter. In an
ideal, homogeneous, and isotropic reservoir, perforation
geometry influences the productivity ratio for a natural
completion as follows:

Productivity increases as shot density increases.

Productivity increases with increases in perforation
penetration.
Penetration increase effect is more significant for
shallower penetrations than for deeper ones. If significant
damage is suspected, a deep-penetration perforator should
be used.
Angular phasings other than 0 degrees increase
productivity by reducing the interference with flow
resulting from the presence of the wellbore.

SPE 68144

Perforation diameter plays a relatively minor role in

determining productivity.

Karakas and Tariq (1988) presented a semi-analytical

solution for the calculation of the perforation skin effect,
which they divided into three components: the plane flow
effect, SH, the vertical converging effect, Sv, and the wellbore
effect, Swb. The total perforation skin effect is then
Sp=SH+Sv+Swb. Figure 1 gives all relevant variables for the
calculation of the perforation skin. These include the well
radius rw, the perforation length, Lperf, the angle which is
exactly inversely proportional to the perforation density (e.g. 2
SPF (shots per foot) results in hperf =0.5 ft).
Formation Damage Skin (SD):
Formation damage may be caused by plugging of the pore
spaces by solid particles, by mechanical disaggregation of the
porous media, or by fluid effects such as the creation of
emulsions or changes in relative permeability. Regardless of
its exact mechanism, it will invariably result in a reduction of
the native formation permeability. Every effort must be made
to minimize both the severity and depth of the formation
damage. It is far better to confine damage to less that half an
inch from the wellbore, even with a damaged permeability 10th
of the virgin permeability, than to allow the damage to invade
one foot resulting in a permeability reduction of 50%.
Pseudo Skin (SPseudo):
These pseudo-skins include all the phase- and ratedependent effects. Following is a discussion of these skin
effects. The rate-dependent skin equals Dq, where D is the
non-darcy coefficient. The skin effect extracted from a well
test in a high-rate gas well is likely to be larger and in certain
instances, much larger than the non-rate-dependent skin effect.
Thus, from a well test, an apparent skin, s can be obtained that
is equal to
S = S + Dq
Tests performed at several different rates can be used to
isolate the skin effect. This paper shows field examples of
extracting the rate dependent skin from the total skin. The
examples show that, the relation between the total skin and gas
rate is not a liner relationship.
Phase-dependent skin effects are associated with phase
changes because of the near wellbore pressure gradient. In the
case of oil wells, if the flowing bottom hole pressure is below
the bubble-point pressure, then a gas saturation will form ,
causing a reduction in the effective permeability to oil even if
the gas phase is not mobile.
A similar phenomena can be observed in the case of gas
retrograde condensate reservoirs, where liquid is formed
around the well, causing a reduction in the gas permeability.
This is a particularly adverse occurrence. While in the case of
gas that is formed in an oil reservoir the gas will reenter

SPE 68144

ESTIMATION OF SKIN FOR HIGH DELIVERABILITY GAS WELL TESTS

solution at an elevated pressure (e.g., as the pressure builds up

when the well is shut-in), in the case of a gas condensate
reservoir much of the formed condensate will not reenter the
gas. Several authors (e.g. Fussell. (1973) and Cvetkovic et al.
(1990)) have studied the process of liquid condensate
deposition with time and have been shown that permeability
impairment to gas in gas condensate reservoirs is not
eliminated following a shut-in. Thus, after reopening the well,
the gas flow rate is still affected by the near-wellbore
permeability reduction. A method to combat this skin effect is
by the injection of neat natural gas, which may re-dissolve the
condensate and displace it into the reservoir. This huff and
puff operation can be repeated periodically.
Sources of Formation Damage
The following is a brief list of potential sources of damage
during various well operations.
Drilling Damage
Drilling damage results from the invasion of the formation
by drilling fluid particles or by drilling fluid filtrate. The depth
of particle invasion is usually small, ranging from 1 to 12
inches (Gatlin, 1960). The relative sizes of the fines and the
pore throats are the primary factor in determining how much
formation damage will occur. External bridging will occur if
the median particle size is larger than 1/3rd of the mean pore
throat size, causing little or no damage. Particle sizes in the
range of 1/3rd to 1/7th of the mean pore throat diameter will
result in shallow invasion but is the most damaging type of
particle invasion. Finally, particle sizes less than 1/7th of the
mean pore throat diameter are usually small enough to readily
flow through the pore throats without causing significant
plugging (Van Poolen, 1966).
Drilling mud filtrate will invade the formation to a greater
depth than drilling mud particles, with depths of invasion of 1
to 6 ft being common (Hassen, 1980). Increased water
saturation around the wellbore, emulsion formation, and clay
dispersion are some of the formation damage mechanisms that
can take place as a result of drilling fluid invasion. The
volume of fluid lost prior to the formation of the filter cake
(spurt loss) is related to the permeability of the formation. If
adequate bridging agents are not present, particularly in high
permeability formations, the entire fluid may be lost during
the spurt period. Once an effective filter cake is formed,
constant pressure filtration occurs, and the thus much lower
rate of leak-off is controlled by filter cake permeability
(Hassen, 1980).
Completion Damage
Damage to the formation during well completion
operations can be caused by invasion of completion fluids into
the formation by cementing, perforating, or stimulation. If the
completion fluids contain solids or are chemically
incompatible with the formation, the resultant damage can be
quite similar to that caused by drilling mud (Sparlin, 1982). As
with drilling damage, a sudden decrease in salinity of the brine

flowing through sandstone will cause formation damage by

dispersing clay particles. This water sensitivity depends on the
cations present in the brine, the pH, and the rate of salinity
change (Gatlin, 1960).
Cementing Damage
Cement particles, usually in the range of 20 to 100
microns, are normally too large to fit into formation pores or
natural fractures, but cement filtrate lost to the formation
during cementing is potentially damaging (Davies et al.,
1983). In general, the amount of fluids lost from cement while
being placed and cured is insignificant, but the fact that
cement filtrate is normally fresh water means that clay
hydration will be serious in any formation that this filtrate
contacts (Van Poolen, 1966). Since the cement filtrate will
often contain a high concentration of calcium ions, this may
lead to precipitation damage. Moreover, cement filtrate, fluid
spacers, and preflushes may increase water saturation in the
near-wellbore region and thereby affect the native clays
(Suman, 1977). Excessive cement weight may cause fractures,
which could promote fluid loss or allow fluid communication
between zones. Pipe reciprocation or rotation and the use of
scratchers and centralizes, essential as they may be to a good
cement job, may also increase the fluid loss to the formation
(Davies, 1983).
Perforating Damage
An effective perforating job will often overcome most or
all of the formation damage, but the perforating process itself
will inevitably result in some pulverization and compaction of
the rock in the immediate vicinity of the perforation, leading
to a damaged region around the perforation (Hong, 1975).
Because of the convergent flow to a perforation, this small
layer of damage around a perforation can significantly impair
the productivity of the perforation. The degree of perforation
damage is determined by many factors including the formation
type, permeability and porosity, the type of perforating charge
used, the level and direction of differential pressure during
perforating, the completion fluid type, and the duration of
cleanup (McLeod, 1983).
Stimulation Damage
Matrix acid treatments are the most common means of
removing formation damage. Examples of formation damage
that can be attacked by acids include mud, clay, silt or shale
particles that plug formation pores or perforation tunnels;
perforation-compacted zones; acid soluble wall-building or
weighting materials used in drilling, completion, killing or
workover fluids; H.E.C. gelled brines; and acid-soluble scales
(Williams et al., 1979). Acids are often misused and instead of
removing damage, they may create more damage than was
originally present. Problems that could result from acid
treatments include precipitation of products from hydrofluoric
acid reaction with minerals in the formation, transport of
partially dissolved scale, rust or dirt from the tubing and
casing into the formation, precipitation of iron in the
formation after the acid is spent, and dissolution of native

H. ELSHAHAWI, K. GAD

cementing materials to cause formation sand to be produced

into the wellbore. Acidizing may also create a "mobile clay"
problem by dissolving the native cementing materials, form
emulsions with the native crude oil, precipitate asphaltenes or
resins from the native crude, create water blockage by the
spent acid, oil-wet the formation matrix with the corrosion
inhibitor or surfactant additives or corrode the tubular goods
(Gidley, 1985).
Production Damage
Formation damage during production can be caused by
fines migration in the formation or by precipitation. The high
velocity in the porous medium near the well is sometimes
sufficient to mobilize fines that can then plug pore throats.
Fines are often mobilized in the vicinity of a production well
when water production begins. Precipitation of solids from the
brine or the crude oil in the formation can also cause severe
formation damage when these solids plug the pore spaces. The
precipitation can be due to changes in temperature or pressure
near the wellbore or from alterations in the composition of the
phase by injected fluids (Schechter, 1992).
Inorganic precipitates causing formation damage are
usually divalent cations, such as calcium or barium, combined
with carbonate or sulfate ions. The ionic species in solution in
the connate water in a reservoir are initially in chemical
equilibrium with the formation minerals. A change in the
composition of the brine may lead to precipitation. On the
other hand, most common organic species that cause
formation damage include waxes (paraffins) and asphaltenes.
Waxes are long-chain hydrocarbons that precipitate from
certain crude oils when the temperature is reduced, or the oil
composition changes because of the liberation of gas as the
temperature is reduced. Asphaltenes are high-molecularweight aromatic and napthenic compounds that are thought to
be colloidally dispersed in crude oils (Schechter, 1992). This
colloidal state is stabilized by the presence of resins in the
crude oil; when these resins are removed, the asphaltenes can
flocculate, creating particles large enough to cause damage.
In the case of oil wells, if the flowing bottom-hole pressure
drops significantly below the bubble-point pressure, free gas
saturation will form in the near-wellbore, causing a reduction
in the effective permeability to oil even if the gas phase is not
mobile. A similar phenomenon can be observed in the case of
gas retrograde condensate reservoirs, where liquid is formed
around the well, causing a reduction in the gas permeability.
Injection Damage
Injection wells are susceptible to formation damage by the
injection of solid particles, by precipitation due to
incompatibility of injected and formation water, or by the
growth of bacteria. Solids injection is always a danger if the
injected water is not well filtered. Damage by precipitated
solids can occur whenever mixing of the injected water with
the formation water leads to super-saturation of one of more
chemical species. The most common problem of this type is

SPE 68144

the injection of water with relatively high concentration of

sulfate or carbonate ions into formations with divalent cations,
such as calcium, magnesium, or barium present. Because
cation exchange with clays can release divalent cations into
solutions when water with a different ionic composition is
injected, precipitation may occur in the formation even when
the injected water is apparently compatible with the formation
water. Injection water may also contain bacteria, particularly
anaerobic bacteria, which may grow in the near-wellbore
vicinity, causing severe formation damage.
Test-Derived Skin Values for High Rate Gas Wells
The above discussion has demonstrated that skin can be
divided into two primary portions, rate-dependent skin and
rate-independent skin. Rate-independent skin is primarily a
function of formation damage skin, well deviation and
completion, and perforation skin. In order to estimate the rate
dependency of skin, several transients need to be initiated by
different flow rates. A minimum of three different flow rate is
required. More flowrates would yield even more accurate
results. The different flow rates are best achieved via
isochronal or modified isochronal tests. A modified isochronal
test is preferred over a flow-after-flow test since the pressure
records during a flow-after-flow test are often affected by
severe turbulence to a point where computation of ratedependent and rate-independent skin components becomes
impossible. In the modified isochronal tests, the skin value for
each flow period is evaluated through the analysis of the
subsequent buildup period.
The following examples illustrate the methodology used
for the calculation of rate-dependent skin. Rate-independent
skin can then be obtained by subtracting the rate-dependent
skin from the total skin value. Modeling of the various skin
components can be carried out using skin-modeling software,
a thorough knowledge of completion and perforation
geometries, and a detailed analysis of multi-depth LWD and
wireline resistivity logs for the estimation of depth of
invasion. Combined with detailed and careful modeling of
perforation geometry and efficiency and near-wellbore as well
as virgin formation parameters, this allows the rateindependent skin to be broken into its constituent components.
This is possible since rate-independent skin is mainly
determined by the relative interaction of the perforation
tunnels and the altered or damaged ring of formation rock
surrounding the wellbore.
Examples-1 and 2 refer to a skin component which was not
mentioned in the above general discussion of traditional skin
components and which is often neglected in conventional
transient well test analysis. This component is the result of
friction between the gas flow stream and the wellbore walls.
This effect is magnified as the flow rate increases, as the
distance between the top of the perforations and the pressure
gauge measure point becomes longer, and as the ID of the
DST flow string decreases. It can be assessed using fluid
mechanics models for compressible flow in pipes and using

SPE 68144

ESTIMATION OF SKIN FOR HIGH DELIVERABILITY GAS WELL TESTS

the gas PVT properties as inputs. This will result in a value of

frictional pressure drop for every average flow rate. Each
frictional pressure drop value can then be translated into an
equivalent skin value using the skin to Delta-P skin ratio
computed from the subsequent buildup. Unlike the total skin
value, which generally increases linearly with flowrate, the
frictional pseudo-skin effect increases quadratically vs.
flowrate. When subtracted from the linear total skin vs. rate
profile, this results in another nonlinear, approximately
exponential relation between the net-non-friction-related skin
and gas flowrate.
Example-1
This example is for a gas well from one of the deep-water
offshore Mediterranean gas fields. Fig.2 shows a plot of total
well test measured skin vs. gas flow rate exhibiting a nearly
perfect linear relationship. As the plot shows, the ratedependent skin represents a very large proportion of the total
skin. For the highest flow rate, it represents more than 90% of
total skin. For the lowest flow rate, it still represents more than
70% of the total skin.
The total skin plotted in Fig.2 includes the friction effect
described earlier. This effect was expected to be significant
since the distance between the gauge and formation during this
particular test was almost 166 meters. Fig.3 shows the
estimated pseudo-skin effect due to friction effects. Fig.4, on
the other hand, shows that after removing the friction effect
from the total skin the relationship between gas rate and total
skin no longer remains linear. The rate-independent skin was
then reduced to around 34, which is still quite high. This was
primarily attributed to the fact that the perforations used were
not deep enough to bypass the invaded zone.
Table 1 summarizes the various components of the rateindependent skin such as partial completion and slant well
skin and perforation skin. As can be seen in this table,
formation damage represents more than 95 % of the rate
independent skin. As mentioned earlier, the high formation
damage skin was due to deep mud filtrate invasion, which, in
turn, was due to high formation permeability (permeability of
this formation is 3110 md) and the large mud column over
balance. The filtrate invasion depth was estimated to be almost
3 feet, not fully bypassed by the perforating charges used.
Example-2
Like Example-1, this example was also taken from a gas
well in the Mediterranean. A modified isochronal test was
again performed on this well to be able to accurately assess the
rate-dependence of skin. Fig.5 shows a plot of the total skin
and the gas flow rate with the total skin value for each flow
rate estimated from the subsequent buildup.
As this nearly linear plot demonstrates, the rate-dependent
skin represents the most dominant portion of the total skin. For
the highest flow rate, it represents more than 95% of the total

skin. For the lowest flow rate it represents more than 85% of
the total skin.
Again, as in the previous case, the total skin in the above
plot includes the pseudo-skin effect due to flow friction in the
wellbore. The distance between the gauge and formation was
again nearly 166 meters, and the pressure drop due to friction
effect was translated into equivalent skin using the skin to
Delta-p skin ratio computed from the buildups. Fig.6 shows
the estimated skin due to wellbore friction. Fig.7, on the other
hand, shows that after removing the friction effect from the
total skin, the relationship between gas rate and total skin no
longer follows a truly linear relationship.
From Fig.7, the rate independent skin is found to be 1.6,
which is a very low value mainly due to the highly efficient
perforation process. Table 3 summarizes the components of
the rate independent skin resulting from a detailed skin-model.
Even though the permeability of this formation was as high as
in Example-1 averaging around 3290 md and with the depth of
invasion equally deep, the perforations in the example well
had much deeper penetration, certainly deep enough to
penetrate the depth of damage by more than 50%. This has
meant that the pre-perforation, drilling-induced damaged was
almost nullified or neutralized.
Example 3
This example represents another case from the Deep
Mediterranean gas fields. In this case, the rate-dependent skin
was representing more than 85% for the highest rate, and more
than 70% for the lowest rate. Fig.8 shows the total skin versus
gas flow rate. The rate independent skin equals 9.5 which was
mainly due to partial completion, as there was relatively little
formation damage on this well, no skin due to perforation, and
no partial completion of slant effects. The permeability of the
tested formation was computed to be 350 md, and the
permeability thickness product to be 79,212 md-ft.
Example-4
This example represents a land well in the Sinai fields of
Egypt. The rate dependence of the skin in this case is
moderate as it represents more than 30% for the lowest flow
rate and more than 50% for the highest flow rate. As Fig.9
shows, the rate independent skin equals 8.6, mainly
attributable to partial completion as the formation damage skin
was computed to be less than 1 and as the well is non-slanted.
The average permeability was found to equal 114 md-ft, while
the average permeability-thickness product was found to equal
7670 md-ft.
Example-5
This example represents a case of non-dependency of skin
on rate due to low permeability. The average permeability of
the this formation was 14 md, while the average permeabilitythickness product was 315 md-ft. As Table 4 shows, no
relationship between total skin and gas rate can be
constructed.

H. ELSHAHAWI, K. GAD

Conclusions
1. Total skin can be divided into two primary portions, ratedependent skin and rate-independent skin.
2.

Rate-independent skin can then be evaluated by

subtracting the rate-dependent skin from the total skin
value obtained from well test analysis. In order to
estimate the rate dependency of skin, there is a need of
different transient with different flow rates best achieved
with modified isochronal test. A minimum of three
different flow rate is required.

3.

Rate-independent skin is a function of formation damage

skin, well deviation and completion, and perforation skin.
It is mainly by the relative interaction of the perforation
tunnels and the damaged zone.

4.

Modeling of the various skin components can carried out

using skin-modeling software, a thorough knowledge of
completion and perforation geometries, and a detailed
analysis of multi-depth LWD and wireline resistivity logs
for the estimation of depth of invasion.

5.

Combined with detailed and careful modeling of

perforation geometry and efficiency and near-wellbore as
well as virgin formation parameters, this allows the rateindependent skin to be broken into its constituent
components.

6.

Examples-1 and 2 refer to a skin component often

neglected in conventional transient well test analysis. This
component is the result of friction between the gas flow
stream and the wellbore walls and which can be assessed
using fluid mechanics models for compressible flow in
pipes and gas PVT properties.

7.

The friction-related skin effect is magnified as the flow

rate increases, as distance between the top of the
perforations and the pressure gauge measure point
becomes longer, and the ID of the DST flow string
decreases.

8.

Unlike the total skin value, which generally increases

linearly with flowrate, the frictional pseudo-skin effect
increases quadratically vs. flowrate. When the latter is
subtracted from the linear total skin vs. rate profile, a
nonlinear, approximately exponential relation between the
non-friction-related skin and gas flowrate results.

9.

The rate-dependency of skin is generally higher for higher

permeability reservoirs. Conversely, for low permeability
gas reservoirs, there may be little or no rate-dependency
of skin as illustrated in Example 5.

SPE 68144

References
1. Allam, A., Siso, S., and Samir, M.: "Evaluation of the P.I.
in Non Flowing Wells-Case History," Presented at the
2nd ARPO Convention, Milan, March 1998.
2. Bell, W.T., Sakup, R.A., and Tariq, S.M.: Perforating,
Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1995).
3. Economides, M.J, Economides, C.E., Hill, A.D.:
Petroleum Production Systems, Prentice-Hall, 1995.
4. Gatlin, C.: Petroleum Engineering-Drilling and Well
Completion, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1960).
5. Hassen, B.R.:
"New Technique Estimates Drilling
Filtrate Invasion," SPE 8791, 1980.
6. Hong, K.C.: "Productivity of Perforated Completions in
Formations With or Without Damage," August 1975.
7. Klotz, J.A., Krueger, P.F. and Pye P.S.: "Maximum Well
Productivity in Damaged Formation Requires Deep,
Clean Perforations," SPE 4792, 1974.
8. Krueger, R.F., Vogel L.C. and Fischer P.W.: "Effect of
Pressure Drawdown on Clean-Up of Clay or Silt Blocked
Sandstone," March 1967, p. 397-403.
9. Lee, J.: Well Testing, SPE Textbook Series Vol.1, 1970.
10. Mattthews, C.S., Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and
Flow Tests in Wells, SPE Monograph Vol 1, Henry L.
Doherty Series (1962).
11. Locke, S.: "An Advanced Method for Predicting the
Productivity Ratio of a Perforated Well," JPT, December
1981, p. 2481-2488.
12. McLeod, H.O. Jr.:"The Effect of Perforating Conditions
on Well Performance," JPT, January 1983, p.31-39.
13. McLeod, H.O. Jr.: "Matrix Acidizing," Distinguished
Author Series, JPT, December 1984, p. 2055-2069.
14. Schechter, R.S.: Oil Well Stimulation, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1992).
15. Van Poolen, H.K.: "Well-Bore Damage-Its Causes and
How to Correct Them," Oil and Gas Journal, September
26,1966.
16. Williams, B.B., Gidley, J.L. and Schechter, R.S.:
"Acidizing Fundamentals," SPE-AIME Monograph
Volume 6, 1979.

SPE 68144

ESTIMATION OF SKIN FOR HIGH DELIVERABILITY GAS WELL TESTS

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF RATE-INDEPENDENT SKIN

COMPONENTS FOR EXAMPLE-1
Skin
Value
Partial Completion (Sc)
4.3
-4.2
Well Deviation (S)
Perforation (SP)
-1.1
Total
1
Formation Damage (SD)
34 1 = 33

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF THE RATE INDEPENDENT

SKIN COMKPONENTS FOR EXAMPLE-2
Skin
Value
Partial Completion (Sc)
0.0
-0.5
Well Deviation (S)
Perforation (SP)
1.4
Total
0.9
Formation Damage (SD)
-1.6 0.9 = -2.5

TABLE 3. GAS FLOW RATE AND CORRSPONDING

TOTAL SKIN FOR EXAMPLE-2
Gas Rate (MSCF/D)
Total Skin
19,072
-0.30
8,702
-2.00
13,392
-1.49
16,332
-0.80
15,900
-0.98

TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF GAS FLOW RATES AND

THE CORRSPONDING TOTAL SKIN-EXAMPLES 1-5
Example-1
Example-2
k = 3110
k = 3290
Gas Rate
Total
Gas Rate
Total
(MSCF/D)
Skin
(MSCF/
Skin
D)
6600
124
5690
11.3
16150
250
14230
28.1
23100
347
26010
56
29600
434
32640
67
Example-3
Example-4
k = 350
k = 114
Gas Rate
Total
Gas Rate
Total
(MSCF/D)
Skin
(MSCF/
Skin
D)
9100
31.7
13730
12.9
15000
47.7
21220
14
21500
63.2
21800
16.2
22000
62.5
28350
17.3
25500
73.4
Example-5
k = 14
Gas Rate
Total
(MSCF/D)
Skin
8702
-2.00
13392
-1.49
16332
-0.80
15900
-0.98
19072
-0.30

H. ELSHAHAWI, K. GAD

SPE 68144

W e llb o r e F r ic t io n -S u b tr a c te d S k in v s R a t e
W e l lb o r e F r i c t i o n - S u b t r a c t e d S k i n = - 2 E - 0 7 Q

+ 0 .0 1 3 2 Q + 3 3 .9 8 5

350

300

Wellbore Friction-Subtracted Skin

250

200

150

100

50

0
0

500 0

100 00

150 00

200 00

250 00

300 00

350 00

G a s R a te ( M S C F /D )

Fig. 1, Perforation Skin Components

Fig. 4, Total skin vs. gas flow rate after subtracting the
friction effect-Example-1.

Total Skin vs Rate

Total Skin = 0.0135Q + 33.985
500
450

Total Skin vs Rate

Total Skin

400

Total Skin=0.0021Q -1.5771

350

80

300

70

250

60

200
To
tal
Sk
in

150
100
50

50
40
30
20

0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

10

Gas R ate (M SCF/D )

0

Fig. 2, Total skin vs. gas flow rate-Example-1.

-10
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Gas Rate (MSCF/D)

F ric tio n a l W e llb o re S k in v s R a te

Fig. 5, Total skin vs. gas flow rate-Example-2.

F r ic tio n a l W e llb o r e S k in = 1 E - 0 7 Q + 0 .0 0 1 Q
160

140
F ric tio n a l W e llb o re S k in v s R a te
120

F r ic t io n a l we llb o r e S k in = 3 E - 0 8 Q + 0 . 0 0 0 3 Q

100

40

35

80
F r ic tio n a l W e

F r ic tio n a l W e llb o

45

60

40

20

30

25

20

15

10

0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

G a s R a te (M SC F /D )
0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

G a s R a t e ( M SC F /D )

Fig. 3, Estimated skin due to friction effects vs. gas flow rateExample-1.

Fig. 6, The estimated skin due to friction effect vs. gas flow
rate-Example-2.

SPE 68144

ESTIMATION OF SKIN FOR HIGH DELIVERABILITY GAS WELL TESTS

W e llb o re F ric tio n -S u b tra c te d S k in v s R a te

2

W e llb o r e F r ic tio n S u b tr a c te d S k in = - 3 E - 0 8 Q + 0 .0 0 1 9 Q - 1 .5 7 7 1
35

Total skin = 0.0003q + 8.5938

30

18
17

W e llb o r e F r ic t io n - S

25

16
20

Total Skin

15
15

10

14
13
12

11
0

10
10000
-5
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

24000

26000

G as Flow Rate, (M SC F/D)

G a s R a t e ( M S C F /D )

Fig. 9, Total skin vs. gas flow rate for Example-4.

Fig. 7, Total skin vs. gas flow rate after subtracting the friction
effect-Example-2.
Total Skin = 0.0025q + 9.4956
80

70

60

Total Skin

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Gas Flow Rate (MSCF/D)

Fig. 8, Total skin vs. gas flow rate for Example-3.

30000

28000

30000