Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Recent developments in perforating fluids are helping operators clean up, both literally
and financially. When combined with advances in perforation-gun performance and
dynamic underbalanced-perforating technology, these new fluids yield significant
improvements in well productivity.
Larry Behrmann Cleaning up after any well operation is critical. properly oriented; second, debris from the
Ian C. Walton In drilling, rock is loosened by the impact of a perforation tunnels must be effectively removed;
Rosharon, Texas, USA drill bit and the hydraulic energy of a drilling and third, formation damage must be minimized
fluid. Drilling mud carries this rock debris to the during the process. Debris includes not only
Frank F. Chang surface. Even before the circulating mud loose material in the perforation tunnel, but
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
removes the loose drilling debris, the formation more importantly, crushed sand grains that line
has been exposed to foreign solids, liquids and the tunnel and constitute what is known as
Alfredo Fayard
Houston, Texas chemicals in solution that sometimes damage perforation damage.
reservoir rock by reducing near-wellbore In reservoirs with a potential for sand
Chee Kin Khong permeability. This reduction is often referred to production, perforation orientation is critical to
Shekou, Shenzhen City, China as formation damage, one of the components of sustained production. This is particularly true in
skin damage. deviated and horizontal boreholes. Excessive
Bjørn Langseth Similarly, in perforating, a high-energy jet from sand production is a common problem that
Stavanger, Norway an explosive shaped charge shoots through casing erodes downhole equipment, plugs the wellbore
and cement, and pierces the formation, creating a and ultimately chokes off fluid flow. In 2001, BP
Stephen Mason conductive path deep into the reservoir rock. noted that 60% of its worldwide production, or
Sugar Land, Texas Immediately after gun detonation, fluid from the around 2 million barrels [317,800 m3] of oil
borehole fills the perforation tunnel. As in drilling, equivalent per day, came from fields requiring
Anne-Mette Mathisen
Hydro this initial contact between the wellbore fluid and some level of sand management.1 Numbers like
Bergen, Norway formation may cause an additional reduction in this reinforce the need for an optimized
permeability and a decrease in perforation perforating strategy to ensure that perforations
Italo Pizzolante efficiency. This is particularly true in over- are placed at the proper orientation and phasing
Tian Xiang balanced perforating, a condition in which to minimize sand flow and maximize
CACT Operations Group wellbore hydrostatic pressure is greater than hydrocarbon production.2
Shekou, Shenzhen City formation pressure. A properly designed perfor- After perforating, tunnel debris must be
ating fluid can help avoid this damage and removed. Long perforation tunnels and those in
Grete Svanes substantially improve well productivity. hard, low-permeability formations can be difficult
MI-SWACO Although many technologies are involved in to clean. Underbalanced perforating is sometimes
Bergen, Norway
modern perforating, three fundamental elements used to help clear these tunnels of debris and
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to are critical to maximizing hydrocarbon recovery. minimize perforation damage.3 However, more
Nils Kågeson-Loe, MI-SWACO, Stavanger; and Charlie Svoboda, Together, they form the basis for an optimized recently, engineers have recognized that
MI-SWACO, Houston.
perforation strategy. First, perforations must be generating a dynamic underbalance just moments
PLT (Production Logging Tool), PURE and SPAN (Schlumberger
perforating analysis) are marks of Schlumberger. CLEANPERF
is a mark of MI-SWACO.
14 Oilfield Review
after perforating-gun detonation may actually
1. Morton N: “Screening Out Sand,” BP Frontiers, issue 2 3. For more on underbalanced perforating: Bakker E,
promote better perforation cleanup than under- (December 2001): 18–22. Veeken K, Behrmann L, Milton P, Stirton G, Salsman A,
balanced perforating, and in some cases, is better 2. For more on perforation orientation: Bersås K, Walton I, Stutz L and Underdown D: “The New Dynamics
Stenhaug M, Doornbosch F, Langseth B, Fimreite H and of Underbalanced Perforating,” Oilfield Review 15, no. 4
suited to the completion design and well Parrott B: “Perforations on Target,” Oilfield Review 16, (Winter 2003/2004): 54–67.
conditions.4 A dynamic underbalance can no. 1 (Spring 2004): 28–37. 4. Chang FF, Kågeson-Loe NM, Walton IC, Mathisen AM
Acock A, ORourke T, Shirmboh D, Alexander J, and Svanes GS: “Perforating in Overbalance—Is It
generally be created from an initial state that is Really Sinful?,” paper SPE 82203, SPE Drilling &
Andersen G, Kaneko T, Venkitaraman A, López-de-
either under- or overbalanced. Cárdenas J, Nishi M, Numasawa M, Yoshioka K, Roy A, Completion 19, no. 3 (September 2004): 173–180.
Wilson A and Twynam A: “Practical Approaches to Sand
Management,” Oilfield Review 16, no. 1 (Spring 2004):
10–27.
Spring 2007 15
2,500 The PURE perforating system for clean
2,000 perforations generates a dynamic, or transient,
Overbalance, psi
underbalance pressure immediately after the
1,500
creation of the perforation tunnel.5 This
1,000
instantaneous decompression of reservoir fluids
500 around a perforation assists in removal of the
0 crushed material from the perforation tunnel
while the rest of the well may be in a static
–500
Underbalance, psi
16 Oilfield Review
In this article, we focus on the third element As leakoff occurs within the perforation tunnel, fluids typically used for overbalanced perfor-
of an optimized perforating strategy, the perfora- the solid and liquid phases of these fluids ating. Initial fluid formulations were designed in
ting fluid. We describe extensive laboratory separate as they are filtered across the formation close collaboration between Hydro Oil & Energy
tests that form the foundation for development face (previous page, bottom). and MI-SWACO at Hydro’s laboratory in Bergen,
of a new perforating-fluid system. Then, we Fluid leakoff into the formation can reduce Norway. The test fluids were blended and
show how one operator in the South China Sea permeability through several mechanisms. The shipped to the MI-SWACO laboratory in Houston
utilized these theoretical concepts to improve substances contained in the leakoff fluid may for verification of the fluid properties. Then,
production efficiency. react with clays in the formation-pore throats samples were taken to the Schlumberger
causing them to swell or mobilize, thus reducing Reservoir Completions Technology Center (SRC)
Evaluating Fluids for effective permeability. Compounds such as in Rosharon, Texas, where the perforation tests
Overbalanced Perforating surfactants and polymers migrating into the were conducted.
As fluid leaks off into a formation after reservoir can change pore-throat wettability and At the Rosharon facility, six fluid types were
perforating, it may cause permeability damage effective diameter, thus altering frictional evaluated in a test cell using various configura-
radially away from the perforation. The extent of pressures and possibly limiting hydrocarbon flow. tions (below). Since zinc-cased shaped charges
radial permeability damage is determined by As the liquid phase leaks off into the have been shown to be incompatible with certain
numerous factors including the initial formation formation, solids and polymers in the perforating water-base completion fluids, several of the test
permeability, the pressure differential between fluid are deposited within the perforation tunnel fluids were evaluated with both zinc and steel
the wellbore and reservoir, the amount and type and formation, forming a low-permeability filter- casing materials.7 The first round of tests was
of clay and other debris present within the cake, or seal, between the tunnel wall and the conducted using Castlegate sandstone cores with
formation pore throats, the liquid-phase chemical formation. In permeable rock, the speed with permeabilities that ranged from 600
components, and the solid-phase chemical and which this seal builds, along with the charac- to 1,000 mD.
physical characteristics. teristics of the sealing materials, determines the In the laboratory, engineers dried the test
The most commonly used wellbore fluid for leakoff rate, the total fluid volume lost into the cores at 300°F [149°C] for 16 hours. These cores
perforating is completion brine. When losses of reservoir rock, and inevitably, the level of were evacuated and saturated with kerosene, and
completion brine are significant, based either on postperforation formation damage.
fluid volume or cost of the fluid being lost, a Realizing the importance of minimizing 5. For more on PURE technology: Bruyere F, Clark D,
Stirton G, Kusumadjaja A, Manalu D, Sobirin M, Martin A,
secondary fluid system typically referred to as a formation damage created during leakoff, Hydro, Robertson DI and Stenhouse A: “New Practices to
fluid-loss control pill (FLCP), or kill pill, is Schlumberger and MI-SWACO engineers began Enhance Perforating Results,” Oilfield Review 18, no. 3
(Autumn 2006): 18–35.
placed across the perforated interval to seal the research in 2001 aimed at developing an 6. Chang et al, reference 4.
perforations against further losses. Most often, optimized perforating fluid to help minimize 7. Javora PH, Ali SA and Miller R: “Controlled Debris
these postperforation FLCPs contain a mix of postperforation formation damage in over- Perforating Systems: Prevention of an Unexpected
Source of Formation Damage,” paper SPE 58758,
liquids and solids, the solids being polymers and balanced environments.6 To establish a baseline presented at the SPE International Symposium on
particulates such as calcium carbonate [CaCO3] for perforation-fluid damage, engineers first Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA,
February 23–24, 2000.
sized to minimize fluid loss to the formation. evaluated water-base and oil-base completion
Specific
Fluid Base fluid Weighting agent gravity, g/cm3 Solids
> Testing perforating-fluid types. Fluids in the first test series included oil-base fluids and perforating fluids built from
completion brines. The density of each was nearly the same, with most being weighted with calcium carbonate [CaCO3].
Spring 2007 17
an initial porosity was measured. Technicians
established permeability in both axial- and
diametral-flow geometries under ambient
temperature and pressure to simulate overburden
pressure. The core was then loaded into the
perforating vessel with casing and a cement plate
attached to the face of the core (left).
Overburden stress was applied to the core, the
gun assembly installed and the simulated
wellbore filled with the test fluid. Most of the
tests involved rotating the test cell so that the
guns fired vertically to simulate oriented
perforating in a horizontal well. Once the test
cell reached the desired reservoir temperature,
pore pressure, overburden stress and wellbore
pressure were applied to create an overbalance
Perforating fluid Core
of 450 psi [3.1 MPa]. Once all pressures had
stabilized, engineers fired the guns, and allowed
Perforation wellbore- and pore-pressure readings to restabilize.
Technicians shut in the system and maintained
Steel to simulate Cement an overbalanced condition for three days.
casing On some tests, leakoff continued during the
shut-in period, causing the wellbore pressure to
decrease and approach reservoir pressure (next
page, top left). If the pressure dropped to a
predetermined level, technicians increased the
pressure to maintain a 450-psi overbalance. This
procedure simulates field operations in which
the hydrostatic column in the wellbore is topped
off periodically to maintain hydrostatic pressure.
In some of the tests, this pump-up and leakoff
cycle occurred several times throughout the
Micrometer valve
Wellbore-pore shut-in period as a function of the perforating
pressure differential fluid’s ability to control fluid loss.
Wellbore pressure After three days, the system was allowed to
Shooting plate simulating cool and pressure was reduced to atmospheric
casing and cement levels. Postperforating productivity was measured
Shooting Gun with shaped charge at ambient temperature by flowing kerosene
leads
Core sample through the core in the axial direction. Starting
from a low flow rate, production continued until
Simulated wellbore steady-state flow was established. Then, the flow
Confining chamber rate was increased to measure the incremental
cleanup as a function of flow rate.
Wellbore pressure data
30-gallon accumulator
To compare the loss-control characteristics of
5-gallon accumulator
the various fluids tested, engineers determined
Confining pressure data
connected to wellbore
the rate at which the filtercake builds, which can
also be interpreted as a leakoff rate (next page,
top right). Technicians also captured data from
conventional high-pressure, high-temperature,
Simulated reservoir core samples (HPHT) fluid-loss tests. The volume of filtrate
captured during the first minute of the test, or
spurt loss, also helped in comparing the
> Full-scale perforating test instrumentation. The test cell (top left) is shown with the core enclosed filtercake-building characteristics of the
in an elastomer sleeve. Once the instrument is sealed, pressure and temperatures are controlled at different fluids (next page, bottom).
simulated downhole conditions. Small and large accumulators provide far-field, or hydrostatic,
pressures (bottom diagram). During tests, the perforating gun (red) is fired through a steel plate
backed by cement into the formation core, thus simulating wellbore conditions (inset).
18 Oilfield Review
6,000 100
60
3,000 5,000
40
2,000
4,000 20
1,000
0 0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 0 5 10 15 20
Time, h Square root of time, s1/2
> Typical shut-in pressure profile. A wellbore-pressure profile was > Fluid leakoff rate. The pressure differential between wellbore-
acquired during a 72-hour shut-in period. The pressure spikes hydrostatic pressure and pore pressure just after wellbore pressure
occurred when technicians increased the simulated hydrostatic has stabilized is plotted against the square root of time. Normalized
pressure to account for fluid leaking off into the core. The rate of for variations in the surface area of the perforation-tunnel wall, the
fluid leakoff is derived from the slope of the leakoff curve (inset). slope of the line indicates the rate at which the filtercake builds.
This value can also be interpreted as the leakoff rate, indicating the
volume of fluid leaking into, or through, the core over time.
Test Initial permeability, mD Core Wellbore fluid, Perforating HPHT leakoff Leakoff rate,
number Axial Diametral porosity, % specific gravity, g/cm3 direction (charge) at 1 min, mL psi/s1/2/in.2 CFE NPPR
1 550 450 24.8 Oil-base mud (1.65) Horizontal (zinc) 0.2 0.32 0.67 51.70
2 768 510 25.7 Oil-base mud (1.65) Up (zinc) 0.2 0.22 0.90 1,150.00
3 750 500 24.9 Calcium bromide, low-solids oil-base mud (1.34) Up (zinc) 4.0 0.38 0.82 169.00
4 575 675 24.9 Cesium formate, low-solids oil-base mud (1.67) Up (zinc) 3.5 0.62 0.52 0.67
5 1,030 715 24.6 Calcium bromide kill pill (1.65) Up (zinc) 2.1 0.65 0.55 1.10
6 1,040 720 25.0 Calcium bromide kill pill (1.65) Up (steel) 2.1 0.46 0.57 1.90
7 600 530 24.4 Cesium formate kill pill (1.63) Up (zinc) 0.7 0.39 0.74 22.00
8 990 680 24.7 Cesium formate kill pill (1.63) Up (steel) 0.7 0.09 0.53 7.85
9 940 670 24.1 Potassium-cesium formate kill pill (1.63) Up (zinc) 1.3 0.25 0.47 4.42
10 920 720 24.6 Potassium-cesium formate kill pill (1.63) Horizontal (zinc) 1.3 0.28 0.54 7.40
CFE
2.5 1.0
0.9
Test 2
2.0 Zinc 0.8
Test 3
Steel 0.7
Test 7
Test 1
1.5 0.6
Test 6
0.5
Test 5
Test 10
Test 8
Test 4
Test 9
1.0 0.4
0.3
0.5 0.2
0.1
0.0 0.0
Water
Oil
Water
Water
Water
Water
Oil
Water
Oil
Oil
> Initial results from the first series of 10 tests (top). Tests 1 and 2 compared perforations shot using oil-base perforating fluids with perforations shot in
the horizontal and vertical directions. A significant improvement in core-flow efficiency (CFE) was seen with the guns oriented vertically. In Tests 5 and 6,
fluids built from calcium bromide [CaBr2] were tested with steel- and zinc-cased charges, confirming the negative impact of bromine and zinc in solution
(bottom left). The normalized perforation/permeability ratio (NPPR) was improved with steel-cased charges. Also of note is the CFE comparison between
water- and oil-base fluids. With the exception of Test 4, perforating in oil-base fluids produced the least damage (bottom right). Engineers suspect that the
low-solids, oil-base mud used for Test 4 suffered a broken emulsion and therefore produced poor CFE values relative to the other oil-base fluids tested.
The high CFE produced in Test 7 with water-base fluid is not completely understood. Because water-base CFE values this high are inconsistent with all
other water-base tests, engineers considered this test an anomaly.
Spring 2007 19
Data from the test series indicated that Zinc-Cased Charge
6,000
most of the fluids slowed the egress of filtrate
into the core. However, calcium bromide [CaBr2] 5,000
brine and low-solids oil-base mud (LSOBM)
formulated with cesium formate [CsCOOH] brine 4,000
Pressure, psi
were exceptions.
3,000
Previous tests had shown that a chemical
reaction occurs between the zinc debris and 2,000
calcium-containing brine during perforating with Wellbore pressure
zinc-cased charges. This typically causes the 1,000 Far-pore pressure
CaBr2 perforating fluid to lose its fluid-loss Near-pore pressure
0
control capability as illustrated by the immediate 0 12 24 36 48 60 72
equalization between wellbore and pore Time, h
pressures (right).8 However, fluid-loss control is
maintained when steel-cased charges are used. Steel-Cased Charge
6,000
The CsCOOH-base LSOBM demonstrated less
fluid-loss control capability. A high initial fluid 5,000
loss was observed, and more fluid entered the
formation, particularly during the initial spurt- 4,000
loss phase. Pressure, psi
3,000
When examining the cores after the tests, the
research team noted that the perforation tunnels 2,000
were filled with material, and in some cases, Wellbore pressure
tightly packed with solids from the perforating 1,000 Far-pore pressure
fluid and formation sand grains. This material in Near-pore pressure
0
the tunnel may have acted as a porous medium 0 12 24 36 48 60 72
within a tunnel of otherwise nearly infinite Time, h
conductivity. To further understand the cleanup > Charge-casing interference with fluid-loss additives. Engineers suspect
potential of the various fluids, engineers that powderized zinc from the zinc-cased charges reacts with salts in brine-
calculated a perforation permeability that takes base perforating fluids. These reaction products negatively affect polymers
used for fluid-loss control in perforating and kill fluids. Leakoff-pressure data
into account the packing of filtercake material demonstrate the lack of fluid-loss control with zinc-shaped charges (top);
within the perforation tunnel. wellbore (green), near- (blue) and far-pore (orange) pressures are equal,
The team used a numerical simulator to indicating the absence of a filtercake and fluid-loss control. With steel-cased
charges (bottom), the fluid is able to build a filtercake; wellbore (green) and
calculate perforation permeability based on
pore (orange and blue) pressures are easily differentiated.
measured productivity and perforation-tunnel
dimensions. Once perforation permeability was
obtained, a normalized perforation/permeability
ratio (NPPR) was defined by dividing the
perforation permeability by the root-mean- damage it will create; this is particularly true of permeability, as long as the oil-base fluids are
square of core axial and diametral permeability.9 water-base fluids. stable and maintain their oil-external emulsions
The NPPR provides a measure of how In general, the greater the volume of fluid lost throughout the perforating process.
permeable the perforation is in comparison with to the formation, the more concentrated and The ability to measure simulated wellbore
the original rock permeability. The measurement dehydrated the internal and external filtercake and formation pressures helped engineers
is independent of the length and diameter of the becomes. Thus, the filtercake is more difficult to understand the fluid dynamics of leakoff, and the
perforation tunnel. Data from the NPPR remove during production and causes more potential damage caused by perforating. Results
calculations confirmed that using oil-base damage to the perforation tunnels. When water- of this first series of tests indicate that, with
perforating fluids results in cleaner perforations base perforating fluids are used, the NPPR either water- or oil-base perforating fluids, the
(next page). It also provided a tool to help declines log-linearly with the leakoff rate, key to minimizing permeability damage is rapidly
evaluate the cleanup efficiency of the water- demonstrating the inefficiency of filtercake building a high-quality filtercake across the
base perforating fluids not otherwise defined by removal as well as the adverse relative perforation-tunnel formation face. Although oil-
core-flow efficiency (CFE) calculations.10 The permeability effect caused by water-base fluids. base perforating fluids demonstrate superiority
data further demonstrated the direct The LSOBM fluid tests showed higher leakoff to water-base fluids in reducing formation
relationship between fluid-loss control and volumes that could be expected to impair damage, minimizing fluid loss should still help
productivity impairment. The less effectively a productivity. However, despite their higher reduce productivity impairment.
perforating fluid builds filtercake, the more leakoff rate and higher HPHT values, the LSOBM
fluids tested do not significantly impair
20 Oilfield Review
in a clear completion fluid. After perforating, the
OBM clear fluid was displaced by a kill fluid similar to
10,000
CaBr2 kill pill (KP) the perforating fluids used in the previous tests.
KCOOH KP The weight of the kill fluid effectively bull-
1,000 headed, or forced under pressure, the clear fluid
(K/Cs)COOH KP
CaBr2 LSOBM into the formation until the kill fluid reached the
100 CsCOOH LSOBM perforation to build a filtercake.
Engineers simulated these processes in the
NPPR
Spring 2007 21
Quick Kill CFE
6,000 1.2
5,000 1.0
3,000 0.6
2,000 0.4
1,000 0.2
0 0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 Quick Kill Slow Kill Kill Later
Time, h
22 Oilfield Review
No Underbalance No Underbalance Shot with Underbalance
2,500
Overbalance and underbalance pressure, psi
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
–500
–1,000
–1,500
–2,000
–2,500
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Time, s
No Underbalance
6,000
> The importance of underbalance. In this test, Castlegate sandstone
5,000 was perforated without achieving a dynamic underbalance
(top left). Although the leakoff-pressure profile (bottom left) shows
4,000
wellbore pressure (green) well above pore pressure (orange),
indicating good fluid-loss control, the low leakoff rate is attributed
Pressure, psi
Spring 2007 23
Castlegate Sandstone In the Field with a Quick-Kill
1.2 Perforating Fluid
China National Offshore Oil Corporation
1.0 (CNOOC), Chevron and Eni, the field operator,
CFE, PImeasured /PIideal are partners in the development of the HZ oil and
0.8
gas fields, operating as the CACT Operators
Group in the South China Sea. The HZ fields
0.6
primarily consist of stacked, thin sandstones in
0.4 which sufficient single-well productivity can be
achieved by commingling production from
0.2 multiple sandstones, by drilling horizontal wells,
or both.
0 Traditionally, tubing-conveyed perforation
KCOOH KCOOH KCOOH OBM OBM OBM OBM Sized Sized
KP KP KP Salt Salt (TCP) has been preferred for thick production
zones. However, CACT engineers found that
Berea Sandstone Quick kill with dynamic underbalance wireline-conveyed casing guns are an economic
0.9 Slow kill with dynamic underbalance alternative for thinner production zones that are
0.8 Kill later with dynamic underbalance spread over a large interval.12 In these wells,
No dynamic underbalance
0.7 multiple wireline-conveyed casing-gun operations
are usually performed slightly overbalanced
CFE, PImeasured /PIideal
0.6
because it is operationally easier and safer.
0.5 Previous perforating operations using tubing-
0.4 conveyed underbalanced-perforation methods
0.3 and static underbalanced wellbore pressures
have required additional rig time, and operations
0.2
have been complicated. In many instances, static
0.1 underbalanced perforating has delivered
0 underperforming wells, probably because the
OBM OBM OBM Sized Salt Sized Salt
perforation-induced skin has not been
> Choosing a perforating fluid. Core-flow efficiency for each fluid tested is
adequately removed. Further, when TCP is used,
shown by process and sorted by core-flow efficiency (CFE). In Castlegate
sandstone (top) and Berea sandstone (bottom), an oil-base perforating fluid unless sufficient rathole is drilled to allow
combined with the quick-kill process (purple) and dynamic underbalance dropping the guns to the bottom of the wellbore,
produced the most favorable results; higher CFE values indicate the least the well must be killed to retrieve them, creating
amount of perforation damage. The kill-later process (blue) and tests in which the risk of postperforation completion-fluid
dynamic underbalance was not achieved (yellow) were the most damaging.
invasion damage. To minimize cost, simplify
operations and minimize perforation damage,
CACT elected to perforate most new wells and
slow-kill cases, dynamic underbalance was than trying to create the cleanest perforation, reperforate existing wells overbalanced using
achieved and the crushed zone was removed. possibly resulting in more filtrate loss to the wireline casing guns.
Laboratory studies showed little difference in formation. Examination of polished epoxy- After studying candidate wells, the CACT
grain sizes in the two cases. However, in the slow- impregnated SEM samples provided further reservoir and production department, working
kill case, the higher fluid-loss levels may have evidence that achieving a dynamic underbalance with Schlumberger and MI-SWACO engineers,
caused the increased level of observed damage. during overbalanced perforating is necessary to elected to test two new completion technologies
In the case with no dynamic underbalance, minimize permeability damage. for overbalanced perforating: the PURE system
the crushed zone was not removed. The result Data from these extensive studies show that and the CLEANPERF fluid, a noninvasive
was retention of a significant amount of fine- during overbalance, the characteristics of the perforating fluid. These technologies were
grained material in the perforation tunnel, thus perforating fluid, the method used to kill and expected to improve well-completion efficiency.
reducing CFE. isolate the perforation zone and success in To test the new perforating system design,
Based on the collected data and petrographic achieving dynamic underbalance during the engineers planned to compare the recompletion
observations, the research team concluded that perforation process strongly influence final well results on reference Well 1 with those obtained
there is a delicate balance between the degree of productivity (above). An optimized strategy for from the newly completed Well 6. Pressure-
cleanup in the perforation and the susceptibility overbalanced perforating must include an buildup data were not available from reference
of the perforation to perforating-fluid invasion. appropriate perforating fluid capable of rapidly Well 1, so the productivity index (PI) was
Creating a perforation tunnel that is sufficiently building a filtercake, while achieving dynamic analyzed to estimate its completion skin factor. A
clean to allow effective filtercake to build may be underbalance during the process. PLT Production Logging Tool was run in the well
more beneficial to overall damage prevention after completion to determine the flow rates of
24 Oilfield Review
all the layers when water cut was lowest. PLT Reference Well 1 Well 6
evaluation of the reference well for the four 0
Spring 2007 25