Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
nearly single phase flow in the formation away from the s t = s d + s pp + s p + s cz + s + s f ............................... (3)
wellbore then the impact of multiphase flow may be
formulated in terms of multiphase pseudoskin factor.
At relatively low flow velocities, the fluid flow in porous where st = total skin factor, sd =skin factor due to formation
media obeys Darcys law. However, when the fluid flows at damage or stimulation, s pp = completion pseudoskin due to
high velocities, the relationship between the insitu fluid
velocity and local pressure gradient becomes non-linear. In partial penetration, s p = completion pseudoskin due to
such a case, the fluid flow is governed by Forchheimer perforations, s cz = skin due to rock compaction around
equation. So-called non-Darcy flow due to high fluid velocity
increases the pressure drop in the reservoir. The non-Darcy perforation tunnels, s = geometrical pseudoskin due to well
flow is mostly concentrated in the near wellbore region, which inclination/slant, and s f = completion pseudoskin owing to
is 5-10 ft away from the wellbore. The influence of non-Darcy
hydraulic fracturing.
flow around the wellbore is accounted for in terms of rate-
In some of the publications, the total skin equations differ
dependent skin factor.
from the expression given in Eq. 3. A list of the total skin
In many cases, the oil and gas wells are under the
equations is given in Table 1.
influence of several skin factors. The combined effects of all
The total pressure drop in completed wells can be
the individual skin factors lead to a total skin factor for the
expressed as
well. The literature includes many reliable/accurate methods
to predict the individual skin factors and their impact on well
performance. However, the interaction between the individual 141.2 q sc Bo
pt = [ ln ( re / rw ) + s t ] .................... (4)
skin factors and the simultaneous effects of several skin kh
factors on well productivity are not accurately formulated.
In this study, we present how to put the individual skin Then the productivity index for the completed wells
factors together and predict the total skin factor correctly. For becomes
the sake of simplicity, multiphase pseudoskin and rate-
dependent skin factors are not considered. kh
Jc = ............................. (5)
141.2 Bo [ ln ( re / rw ) + s t ]
Productivity Model for Vertical Openholes
The openhole completion is the simplest and possibly the most
cost-effective completion technique. It is also rather easy to To comprehend the effect of all the skin factors on well
develop a productivity model for vertical openholes. The productivity, the productivity index of the well with skin
productivity model is a device describing the functional factors is compared to that of an ideal openhole. The
dependence between well flow rate and corresponding comparison is quantified in terms of productivity ratio (PR).
pressure drop. By simply integrating Darcys equation, one
could readily obtain a well productivity model for openholes Jc ln( re / rw )
PR = = ...................................... (6)
producing under steady state flow conditions. J oh ln ( re / rw ) + s t
As we introduce the correct methods to formulate the total The parameters controlling the s pp value are permeability
skin factor, it is appropriate to examine the individual skin
factors mentioned previously. anisotropy, penetration ratio, and wellbore size. Besides the
exact analytical solutions, there exist several simple semi-
Mechanical Skin Factor analytical and empirical models/correlations to predict the
Formation damage around the wellbore causes additional partial penetration pseudoskin and its influence on the well
pressure drop and reduces well productivity. To evaluate the productivity. Among these empirical models, the correlations
impact of formation damage around a vertical openhole, proposed by Odeh6, Papatzacos7, and Vrbik8 have been
Hawkins1 proposed to represent the damaged zone as a popular due to their simplicity. These semi-
concentric cylinder around the wellbore. The damaged zone is analytical/empirical models were compared against the
exact analytical model described in Ref. 9. Such a
characterized by a uniform permeability of k d and radius of comparison is displaced in Fig. 2 for h=100 ft, rw=0.25 ft,
rd . Mechanical skin factor is defined as below. kz/kr=1, and the open segment being placed at the top of the
formation. The Papatzacos and Vrbik models were found to be
quite accurate. For the sake of completeness, the Vrbik model
s d = (k / k d 1) ln ( rd / rw ) ............................................ (7)
is described in Appendix-A. The reader is referred to the
original papers for additional information about the empirical
The additional pressure drop owing to the formation models mentioned.
damage can be quantified as
Once the s pp value is available, the additional pressure
141.2 q sc Bo drop due to partial penetration may be computed using the
pd = s d .......................................... (8) expression below.
kh
141.2 q sc Bo
Mechanical skin factor expression above ignores the p pp = s pp ...................................... (9)
impact of well completion and implicitly assumes that there kh
exists a one dimensional (1-D) radial flow around the
openhole. The simultaneous influences of partial penetration and
formation damage/stimulation have been debated in the
Partial-Penetration Pseudoskin literature. In some studies,8,10,11 the combined effects of
In partially penetrating vertical wells, only a segment of the formation damage and partial penetration are considered to be
wellbore is open to flow to admit fluid from the formation. a simple linear sum of mechanical skin factor and partial
Partially open vertical wells are also referred to as the penetration pseudoskin factor.
restricted entry wells. In partially penetrating wells, there may
still exist a radial flow deeper in the formation away from the st = s d + s pp ................................................................ (10)
wellbore. However, when the fluid approaches to wellbore, the
fluid has to converge around the open well segment. Partial However, this formulation is inaccurate. Eq. 10 downplays
penetration creates a two-dimensional (2-D) flow field around the contribution of formation damage. As it has been shown
the near wellbore region as illustrated in Fig. 1. Because of the by Jones and Watts,13 Odeh,14 and Saidowski,15 the formation
fluid convergence and 2-D flow in the near wellbore region, damage has a stronger impact on well productivity than Eq. 10
fluid flows at higher velocities around the wellbore. The net predicts. In partially penetrating well, the impact of formation
result of partial penetration is that it yields an extra pressure damage is magnified. If it is assumed that the damaged zone is
drop in the near wellbore region and reduces the well relatively thin and flow convergence due to partial completion
productivity. is completed before the fluid enters into the damaged zone, as
The impact of partial penetration on the well productivity conceptualized in Fig. 1, then it can be analytically shown that
has been the subject of many studies.2-14 Many analytical the combined impact of formation damage and partial
models simulating the 2-D flow into a partially penetrating penetration leads to the following total skin factor.
well have been presented. These analytical models include
relatively complex functions such as Bessel functions and h
infinite series. Although the computation of the analytical st = s d + s pp ......................................................... (11)
solutions can be easily done on PCs, they are not very popular hp
since they are contaminated with infinite series and special
functions. On the other hand, if the flow convergence towards the limited
It should be pointed out that the analytical solutions for open segment takes place partly outside and partly inside the
partially penetrating wells consider that the completed interval damaged zone then the impact of formation damage is
admit fluid at every point on its completed wellbore surface. somewhat less than what Eq. 11 indicates. For such cases, the
These models do not consider the additional fluid convergence total skin factor is formulated as below.
owing to perforations and slots.
The effect of partial penetration on well performance is 1 h
st = s d + s pp .................................................... (12)
formulated in terms of partial penetration pseudoskin, s pp . hp
4 T. YILDIZ SPE 82249
where is greater than 1. Jones and Watts13 and Odeh14 offer two nomographs also account for skin factors owing to
simple equations to compute the parameter. formation damage and rock compaction around the perforation
tunnels. The nomographs are not practical for multiple
Saidowski15 reported that Eq. 11 works well for even deep
calculations or software development.
formation damage as long as the damaged zone radius is less
than 20 ft and penetration ratio is greater than 20%.
McLeod Method. In 1983, McLeod19 proposed the
Eqs. 11 and 12 should be used cautiously when s d is following simple equation combining the effects of perforation
negative. These equations do not apply when a short interval is pseudoskin, formation damage, and rock compaction around
completed with a negative s d value. the perforation tunnel.
s cz term. The modified Jones-Slusser method, Eq. 17, may not The second algorithm given by Karakas and Tariq
combines the influences of perforations, formation damage,
be accurate for perforation designs resulting in a negative s p
and compacted zone around the perforation tunnels for deep
value. penetrating perforation. On the other hand, Karakas and Tariq
did not explicitly describe a procedure uniting damage skin,
Karakas and Tariq Method. Based on the results from a perforation pseudoskin, and compacted zone skin for the short
finite element simulator, Karakas and Tariq23 developed perforations terminated inside the damaged zone. Eq. 20
empirical equations to predict the total skin factor in a fully considers only the perforation pseudoskin and the compacted
perforated vertical well. The core of their study is the equation zone skin factor. Eq. 21 joins the damage skin and perforation
for perforation pseudoskin. For the sake of completeness, the pseudoskin factors. However, to quantify the combined
Karakas-Tariq method is summarized in Appendix B. The impacts of formation damage, perforations, and compacted
original work of Karakas and Tariq should be consulted for zone for short perforations, some engineers replace s p term in
additional information and details. With some changes in
nomenclature, their equation for estimating perforation Eq. 21 with s pc term of Eq. 20. Along these lines, Bell et al.21
pseudoskin has the following form. suggested the equation below for the short perforations.
s p = s H + s v + s wb ...................................................... (18) k
s pdc = s d + ) ................................. (22)
( s p + s x + s cz
kd
The first term represents the flow convergence in the
horizontal plane. The second term accounts for the flow
convergence in the vertical plane. The effect of the cylindrical SPAN Program. SPAN is a software package to design
wellbore itself is considered in the last term. Karakas and perforating variables.24 The model equations are developed
Tariq presented simple expressions for s H , sv , and swb . from the detailed finite element simulations. It uses a modified
To account for the pressure losses in the compacted zone version of the Karakas and Tariq method.25
around the perforations, Karakas and Tariq used an expression
similar to Eq. 15.
3-D Semi-Analytical Method. In all the previous methods
zp described above, it is assumed that all the perforations are
k
=
s cz ( 1) ln( rcz / r p ) .................................. (19) equivalent and perforations are uniformly distributed. In Ref.
Lp k cz 26, a general 3-D semi-analytical model considering arbitrary
and non-uniform perforation parameters and distribution was
Addition of perforation pseudoskin and crushed zone skin developed. The 3-D semi-analytical model considers flow
factors describes the combined effects of these two convergence towards perforations, formation damage, and
parameters. compacted zone around the perforations tunnels. Additionally,
the model can handle selective perforating at multiple open
.............................................................. (20)
s pc = s p + s cz segments. For additional information and details, the reader is
referred to Ref. 26.
For the simultaneous impact of perforation pseudoskin and Accuracy of Perforation Pseudoskin Models. Pan and
formation damage, Karakas and Tariq proposed two different Tang27 constructed an experimental perforated well model
procedures. The first procedure is for the short perforations using an electrolytic setup. They measured the well
terminated inside the damaged zone and is very similar to the productivity under the influence of perforation pseudoskin,
method proposed by Jones and Slusser sixteen years earlier. formation damage, and rock compaction around the
perforation tunnels. Pan and Tang conducted two sets of
k experiments. In the first set, the perforations were short and
s pd = s d + ( s p + s x ) .............................................. (21)
kd terminated inside the damaged zone. In the second set,
perforations were extending beyond the damaged zone. To
For most cases, the s x term is negligible. The second investigate the accuracy of the skin factor models for
perforated wells, we compared the models described above
procedure is for deep penetrating perforations extending with the experimental data collected by Pan and Tang.
beyond the damaged zone. To compute the total skin factor Fig. 4 compares the results simulated using McLeod model
resulting from formation damage and completion pseudoskin with the experimental data. The solid symbols represent the
due to long perforations, Karakas and Tariq defined effective measured data. The dashed lines with hollow symbols show
perforation length and effective wellbore radius terms and the results computed using the method suggested by McLeod
suggested to replace the actual perforation length and wellbore (Eq. 14). s p value used McLeod model is calculated using
radius terms with the effective ones in the calculation
Karakas-Tariq model instead of the nomographs as suggested
procedure yielding s p , scz , and s pc . The equations for
by McLeod. As can be observed on Fig. 4, McLeod method
effective properties are given in Appendix B. significantly overestimates the well productivity. A
6 T. YILDIZ SPE 82249
comparison of Eqs. 14 and 17 identifies the reason for the perforations relative to the damaged zone. If there had not
overestimated well productivity. The McLeod model been crushed zone effect in the experimental data, the
downplays the effect of formation damage. It should be calculated results from Eq. 17 would have deviated from the
reiterated that the McLeod method is implicitly limited to measured data. The modified Jones-Slusser method is not
short perforations placed inside the damaged zone. However, recommended for the long perforations.
this implicit assumption has not stopped the others to use the The comparison of experimental data against the simulated
McLeod method for the long perforations piercing through the results from SPAN and 3-D analytical model is displayed in
damaged zone. The McLeod model should not be expected to Fig. 6. On Fig. 6, the symbols, dashed line, and solid line
give good productivity estimates for long perforations. show the measured data, SPAN results, and the analytical
The simulated results using the Karakas-Tariq method are model results, respectively. Both SPAN and 3-D analytical
also displayed on Fig. 4. In Fig. 4, the solid lines with hollow model replicate the experimental data very well.
symbols depict the results from the Karakas-Tariq method. Besides being tested against the experimental data, the
The results from the Karakas-Tariq model are significantly methods to compute the perforation total skin are also
lower than the measured values for both short and long compared for a representative field case. The data set used in
perforations. It should be reminded that, for the short the comparison includes re = 745 ft, rw= 0.25 ft, Lp= 2-12 in.,
perforations, Karakas and Tariq did not clearly describe a rp= 0.1 in., n spf = 4 and 8, p= 90o, h= 100 ft, rcz= 0.2 in.,
procedure to estimate the total skin factor including the effects
kcz / k=0.1, rd= 4.5 in., and kd / k=0.2. The results for
of perforation pseudoskin, formation damage, and rock
compaction. However, the others have used the Karakas-Tariq n spf = 8 and n spf = 4 are shown in Figs. 7 and 8,
algorithm by replacing the s p term in Eq. 21 with the s pc respectively. sp term used in the McLeod and the modified
Jones and Slusser methods is determined using the Karakas
predicted from Eq. 20 resulting in Eq. 22. This approach and Tariq method, Eq.18. As can be seen on both graphs, the
overestimates the total skin factor. On the other hand, an results from 3D analytical model of Ref.26 and SPAN agree
algorithm to compute the total skin factor for the long well. The modified Jones and Slusser method gives good
perforations passing through the damaged zone has been results as long as the perforations are short and terminated
proposed by Karakas and Tariq. Unfortunately, the results
inside the damaged zone, Lp < rd . For both cases, the results
from the algorithm substantially deviate from the experimental
from the McLeod and the Karakas-Tariq methods substantially
data. Karakas and Tariq method was further scrutinized by
deviate from those of the 3D analytical model and SPAN.
comparing it with SPAN and 3-D analytical model. It has been
observed that Karakas and Tariq method predicts the value of
Partially Perforated Vertical Wells
perforation pseudoskin itself accurately. The algorithm also
In many previous publications,8, 28-36 the total skin factor for
works fine as far as the perforation pseudoskin and crushed
partially perforated vertical wells is treated inconsistently,
zone combination is concerned. The Karakas and Tariq
incompletely, or inaccurately. In some publications,35,36 the
method also yields reasonable estimates for the combined
pseudoskin due to partial completion and pseudoskin due to
effects of formation damage and perforation pseudoskin.
perforations are completely mixed up. Beggs35,36 suggested to
However, when both the formation damage and rock
use the Saidowskis equation15 for partial penetration
compaction effects are compounded with the perforation
pseudoskin as an alternative to using the nomographs
pseudoskin, the Karakas and Tariq method calculates
published by Hong16 or Locke18 to compute perforation
unreasonably high total skin factor. This is true for both the
pseudoskin.
long and short perforations.
The flow convergence around a partially perforated
The modified Jones-Slusser method has also been tested
vertical well differs from that around a partially penetrating
against the experimental data. The comparison is shown in
well and that about a fully perforated vertical well. As
Fig. 5. As it can be observed on the figure, the calculated
depicted in Fig. 7, there are two scales of flow convergence in
results from Eq. 17 agree well with the experimental results.
the near wellbore region of a partially perforated well. At the
But, when the perforation pseudoskin ( s p ) term is negative, far field away from the wellbore, the flow is about radial and
the results calculated from Eq. 17 deviate from the measured 1-D. While fluid gets near the wellbore, first it sees the effect
data. Eq. 17 is not recommended for perforation designs of partial completion and start to converge towards the
completed interval without feeling the impact of perforations.
yielding negative s p value.
This flow convergence is 2-D and practically identical to the
Eq. 17 can be analytically derived for short perforations same phenomena experienced in partially penetrating well
ended inside the damaged zone. However, the applicability of whose completed segment is barefoot. There may be a
Eq. 17 to the long perforations reaching beyond the damaged pseudoradial flow across the completed segment before the
zone is questionable. In the experimental data, the crushed second flow convergence emerges. When fluid gets near the
zone contributes the most to the total skin; the perforation perforations, it goes through a new flow pattern change. A 3-D
pseudoskin and formation damage skin are small compared to flow field grows when fluid converges around the perforation
the skin due to crushed zone. This is basically the reason for tunnels. Two scales of flow convergence are likely to take
the good agreement between the results from the modified place in different locations around the wellbore and should be
Jones-Slusser and the experimental data belonging to the long treated separately.
perforations reaching beyond the damaged zone. The impact The interaction between two scales of flow convergence,
of crushed zone is not influenced by the extent of the formation damage, and rock compaction around the
SPE 82249 ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL SKIN FACTOR IN PERFORATED WELLS 7
perforation tunnels should be formulated delicately. The formation damage, and rock compaction around the
formation damage and rock compaction have more dynamic perforations are compounded. For such cases, the
interaction with the flow convergence around the perforation Karakas-Tariq algorithm overpredicts the
than that due to partial penetration. Therefore, we suggest perforation total skin factor.
incorporating the formation damage and rock compaction 3. The original Jones-Slusser method has been
effects into the perforation model. First, one should consider a modified to account for the rock compaction around
unit-thickness perforated segment and compute perforation the perforations. The modified Jones-Slusser method
total skin accounting for formation damage, 3-D flow was compared against the experimental data. It has
convergence around each perforation, and the compacted zone been observed that the modified Jones-Slusser
around each perforation tunnel. Second, only the pseudoskin method compares very well with the experimental
due to partial completion should be estimated using the data when perforations are terminated inside the
methods described in Refs. 4-10. Then total perforation damaged zone.
pseudoskin and partial penetration pseudoskin should be 4. SPAN software using a modified version of the
combined as shown below. Karakas-Tariq algorithm has been tested against the
experimental data. The results from the software and
h the experiments agree well.
st = s pdc + s pp ..................................................... (23) 5. For partially perforated wells, many studies in the
hp
literature consider the total skin factor as a linear
summation of the individual skin factor. We have
Eq. 23 has been verified in Ref. 26. The analytical model compared some of the total skin factor equations
presented in Ref. 26 has the capability to simulate the flow against the 3D model and SPAN. It has been shown
into selectively perforated wells by considering 3-D flow that the total skin factor equations based on the
around each individual perforation. Also, Refs. 21 and 22 linear addition of individual components do not
presented equations that are special and limited application of work.
Eq. 22. 6. Besides the 3D model and SPAN software, the
Fig. 10 compares the different methods for computing the simple expression given in Eq. 23 can also be used
total skin factor for a partially perforated well. The data set to predict the total skin factor for partially perforated
used is printed on the figure. The formation damage thickness, wells accurately. A limited version of Eq. 23 was
rd , is 6 inches. The results from 3D model, SPAN, and the proposed by Jones-Slusser three decades ago.
simple expression given in Eq. 23 agree very well. Refs. 8, 28,
29, 31, 33, and 34 predict substantially different results. The Nomenclature
total skin equations for the different methods are listed in Bo = formation volume factor, dimensionless, rbbl/stb
Table 1. When computing the total skin factor for the Refs. 8, h = formation thickness, L, ft
33, and 34, the perforation skin factor also included the effect hb= the distance between the bottom of the completed
of rock compaction around the perforation tunnels. interval and reservoir, L, ft
After verifying the simple expression in Eq. 23 against the hp= the length of the completed interval, L, ft
3D model and SPAN, we investigated the impact of perforated hpt= the length of the total completed interval, L, ft
interval length on the total skin factor. The data set used and Jc= productivity of completed well, stb/day/psi
the results are given in Fig. 11. If a short interval, less than Joh= productivity of open hole, stb/day/psi
10%, on the well is completed with short perforations, k = permeability, L2, md
L p 3 in. , the total skin factor is enormously high. kcz= permeability of crushed zone, L2, md
kr= permeability in radial direction, L2, md, k xk y
Conclusions kx = 2
permeability in x-direction, L , md
This study examined the methods to predict the total skin ky = permeability in y-direction, L2, md
factor for perforated and damaged wells. The methods were kz = permeability in z-direction, L2, md
compared against the experimental data. The following Lp= perforation length, L, ft
conclusions have been reached. It should be noted that the np= number of perforations
conclusions listed pertain to the range of data considered. nspf= number of shots per foot
1. The perforation total pseudoskin equation given by p= pressure, m/Lt2, psi
McLeod does not replicate the experimental results. PR = productivity ratio, dimensionless, fraction
The McLeod method downplays the effect of qsc = flow rate at surface, L3/t, stb/day
formation damage and underestimates the rcz = radius of crushed zone around perforation, L, ft
perforation total pseudoskin. re = reservoir radius, L, ft
2. The Karakas-Tariq method has been compared rp = perforation radius, L, ft
against the experimental data and the other models. rpe = equivalent perforation radius, L, ft
The algorithm works fine for ideal perforation rw = wellbore radius, L, ft
tunnels and perforations with compacted zone scz = skin due to rock compaction around perforations in
around them. However, the Karakas-Tariq method the presence of formation damage
does not work when the effects of ideal perforations,
8 T. YILDIZ SPE 82249
34. Elshahawi, H.M. and Gad, K.H.:Estimation of Skin for High Eq. B-2 is valid for all the phasing angles except
Delivery Gas Well Tests, paper SPE 68144 presented at the zero. ( p ) is tabulated as a function of the phasing angle.
2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, March 17-20.
35. Beggs, H. D., Gas Production Operations, OGCI Publications, For ( p ) = 0 , rwe ( p = 0 ) = L p / 4 .
Tulsa, Oklahoma (1984) Chapter 3, 85.
36. Beggs, H.D., Production Optimization, OGCI Publications, Tulsa,
Oklahoma (1991) Chapter 2, 51. 2. Estimate the pseudoskin due to cylindrical wellbore.
rwD = rw k z / k r / h ............................................... (A-11) s 'p represents the combined effect of pseudoskin due to
flow convergence toward perforations and the permeability
The details on the Vrbik model can be found in Ref. 8. impairment due to rock compaction around the perforations.
The other variables appearing in Eqs. B-1 through B-12 McLeod19 s pdc = s d + s p + s cz
are defined below.
Bell-Sukup-Tariq21 s t = s d + s pp + s
rwD = rw /( rw + L p ) ................................................. (B-13) h s pdc h
s t = s pp + [ + (9 + 11 ) s ]
hp hp
z pD = z p k r / k z / L p ...................................... (B-14) '
s pdc = s d + ( k / k d ) ( s p + s cz + sx )
Jones-Slusser22 s pd = s d + ( k / k d ) s p
rpD = ( rp / 2 z p ) (1 + k z / k r ) ............................ (B-15)
s t = ( h / h p ) s pd + s pp
28
z p = 1 / n spf ........................................................... (B-16) Thomas et al. s t = (h / h p ) s d + s pp + s p + s cz + s
Penmatcha et al.29 s t = (h / h p ) s d + s pp + s p + s cz + s
SI Metric Conversion Factors
3
Golan-Whitson31 s t = (h / h p ) ( s d + s p ) + s cz + s pp
bbl x 1.589 873 E-01 = m
cp x 1.0* E-03 = Pa*s Samaniego-C. s t = ( h / h p ) ( s d + s p ) + s pp + s + s f
ft x 3.048* E-01 = m Ley32
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
in. x 2.54* E+00 = cm Econ.-Booney33 s t = s d + s p + spp
lbf x 4.448 222 E+00 = N
Elshahawi-Gad34 s t = s d + s p + spp + More skins
lbm x 4.535 924 E-01 = kg
mD x 9.869 233 E-04 = m2
* Conversion factor is exact.
SPE 82249 ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL SKIN FACTOR IN PERFORATED WELLS 11
C r ushe d zo ne
1 .0 a ro und pe rf oration s
Damaged
zone
D am age d zo ne
kd 0 .8 arou nd we llb or e
+
Productivity Ratio
C ru shed zon e
arou nd perfo ra tions
0 .6
h
hp
0 .4
Fig. 1-Partially penetrating well subject to formation damage. Fig. 4-Comparison of Karakas-Tariq and McLeod models with the
experimental data of Pan and Tang.
Crushed zone
around perforations
1.2
Damaged zone
10 1.0 around wellbore
+
Productivity Ratio
Crushed zone
around perforations
0.8
spp
0.6
2D exact solution
1
Vrbik
0.4 Pan & Tang Modified J&S Method
Papatzacos
np = 8
Odeh
0.2 np = 12
np = 16
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0
hp , ft 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
Fig. 2 Comparison of empirical models for partial penetration L p , in.
with the 2D exact solution. Fig. 5-Comparison of the modified Jones-Slusser model with the
experimental data of Pan and Tang.
1.2
kd
Damaged zone
1.0 around wellbore
kx, ky, k z +
Crushed zone
Lpj around perforations
0.8
zj
Productivity Ratio
Da ma ged
zo ne k czj rczj
0.6 Measured data
jth perforatio n 2r pj np = 8
0.4 np = 12
Crus hed zo ne
np = 16
Span
0.2
z j-1 Crushed zone Yildiz
rd around perforations
0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
rd L p , in.
Fig. 6-Comparison of the results SPAN and 3-D analytical model
with the experimental results.
Fig. 3 Schematics of a perforated well.
12 T. YILDIZ SPE 82249
16.0 160
re = 745 ft span h = 100 ft
rw = 0.25 ft This study
hp = 10 ft
14.0 140
rd = 0.75 ft rw = 0.25 ft
3D
kd / k = 0.25 rd = 0.75 ft
12.0 spf = 8 Thomas et al., P-F-A
120 kd / k = 0.25
ph. angle= 90o Vrbik, E-B, E-G spf = 8
10.0 rp = 0.1 in.
rcz = 0.3 in. 100 Golan-Whitson ph. angle= 90o
rp = 0.1 in.
kcz / k = 0.1 span
st
8.0
s pdc
40
2.0
0.0
20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 L p , in.
L p , in.
Fig. 10-Comparison of total skin calculation methods for a
Fig. 7-Comparison of spdc calculation methods, n spf = 8 . partially perforated well. Perforated segment is at the top.
30 300
re = 745 ft L p , in. h = 100 ft
rw = 0.25 ft rw = 0.25 ft
2
rd = 0.75 ft 250 rd = 0.75 ft
25 3
kd / k = 0.25 kd / k = 0.25
spf = 4 4.5 spf = 8
ph. angle= 90 o 200 6 ph. angle= 90o
20 rp = 0.1 in.
rp = 0.1 in.
rcz = 0.3 in. 7.5
rcz = 0.3 in.
kcz / k = 0.1 150
st
15
K&T 12
3D
100
10 McLeod
mod J&S
50
5
0
10 100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 h p , ft.
L p , in. Fig. 11-The effect of perforated segment length on total skin for
several perforation lengths.
Fig. 8-Comparison of spdc calculation methods, n spf = 4 .
hp
F lo w co n v e r g e n ce d u e
F lo w to p a r tia l p e n e tr a t ion
hb c o n v e rg e n c e
d u e to
p e r fo r a ti o n s