Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Summary
These general terms. sand Dq. are evaluated by transient pressure testing. or they can be determined by
multirate flow tests. They provide a measure of total additional pressure drop caused by wellbore damage and
turbulent flow. In evaluating well completions or proposing a certain way of perforating. we need a more
specific relationship to well bore geometry and condition.
By analyzing the effect of perforations on well flow
from experimental parameters from laboratory perforation tests. 3 one can show the dominating influence of
real perforations on wellbore pressure drops in a highpermeability formation. These same procedures also can
be used for low-permeability formations; however. the
perforation effect is not as striking as in a high-permeability formation.
Fig. I shows a simple schematic of a perforation connected to the wellbore. Around each perforation made in
rock there exists a compacted zone with a thickness of
about 0.5 in. (1.25 cm) ..,.) The permeability of this
compacted zone will vary from 10 to 25 % of the
permeability of the rock just before perforating. The
compaction takes place when the hole is created by the
impact of the disintegrated shaped charge metal liner.
The permeability can be reduced further by the presence
of dirty perforating fluids or drilling mud. particularly
when pressure forces fluid into the perforation. For a
perforated well. the factor D is defined as follows .
Introduction
Recent work by Jones ('( al. I and Mach ef al. 2 describes
pressure drop in turbulent flow through gravel-packed
perforations. No method ha~ been presented yet to
describe similarly turbulent /low in perforated wells that
are not gravel packed. Thi~ paper presents an approach
to this problem. It can be u~ed to analyze producing gas
wells. or it can be combined with flowing well analysis 2
to calculate the perforJtion~ needed to complete a gas
well in a consolidated or competent formation.
. [I n ( 0 .4 72
1',
ir" ) +.1+ Dq ].
....... (I )
-7
D-~.22(10)
-1)(
i3,,1'
n-L"rl'
)(kRh)
.......
(2)
!l
"I"
01492136183100110649$0025
Copy"ghl 1983 Soclely of Pelroleum Engineers of AI ME
21
PR-P"f=
141.2qJJ.B g
kRh
In(0.472r e lr".)+s+Dq ,
. . . . . . . . . . . (7)
where
q = gas flow rate, MscflD (std m 3 Id),
B g = reservoir volume factor, res bbl/Mscf
(res m 3 /std m 3), and
........................ (S)
P
The terms sand D are the same as in Eq. I.
Well A
This well was the first to show the impact of perforation
condition on the performance of a gas well in a highpermeability formation. The well was completed in a
200-md formation and was perforated in an IS-Ibm/gal
(2160-kg/m3) mud with a 3~-in. (8-cm) gun at 2 shots/ft
(2 shots/0.3 m). When production started at about 8,000
MscflD (229 090 std m 3 Id), the pressure drop, or
drawdown, into the well bore was about 1,100 psi (7580
kPa). More than 90% of this pressure drop was through
the compacted zone around each perforation, and more
than 80 % of this pressure drop through the perforation
~) ......... (6)
kd
22
q. Mscf/D
PR' psia
Pw',' psia
j,P, psia
P, psia
z
B, res bbl/Mscf
cp
k dP ' md
/1,
7.152
12,315
11,458
857
11,887
1.55
0.463
0.0380
5.1
8.080
10,177
9,070
1,107
9,624
1.38
0.506
0.034
5.3
7,739
8,625
7,691
934
8,158
1.26
0.548
0.031
6.1
5,178
6,365
5,915
450
6,140
1.10
0.636
0.0265
6.7
4,850
5,815
5,260
555
5,538
1.05
0.673
0.0245
5.2
4,895
5,565
5,082
483
5,324
1.04
0.693
0.0240
6.1
s"
s"
Well B
This California well was perforated in brine with an
underbalance of 500 psi (3450 kPa). A I ~kin. (4-cm)
through-tubing gun perforated 4 shots/ft (13 shots/m) at
0 phasing. This well was completed in 1972 and has
been tested several times since to determine gas reserves
in this single-well reservoir. Two excellent pressurebuildup tests have been made following semi steady-state
flow periods at two different flow rates. Analyses of
these pressure-buildup tests provided the following data.
D=0.0015=2.22(10) -15
=2.22(10) -15
~",,~
(kRh)
(O.6){3""
J.I.
.(o~:J ...........................
Rate
5.250
3.300
I1-L"-r,,
Year
1977
197H
200
26
1,320
0.375
2
0.19
9
0.635
245
(9)
9.6
6.7
(3""
1.75( 10)9 ft
=2.6(10)10
r"
k""
23
m-'
0.6
0.25
0.25+0.5=0.75
6,240
16
0.0218
Wells D and E
Data were obtained* from offset wells completed in the
Wilcox-Slick fonnation in Live Oak County, TX. Well
D was perforated with a 1'lj6-in. (4-cm) through-tubing
gun and with a pressure underbalance of 800 psi (5515
kPa). Well E was perforated with a 3Ys-in. (8.6-cm)
tubing-run gun and with a pressure underbalance of
2,085 psi (14 375 kPa). Data provided or estimated are
shown in Table 4.
No pressure-buildup test data or core data were
available. The flow data from Well E were used to
calculate a fonnation penneability of 70 md by assuming
that kc1k=1 for the perforation zone (i.e., kdp=kd=
0.5k R ). This assumes ideal perforating. Then Well D
was evaluated with a kR of 70 md, and a kdplkd of 0.4
was found for a perforation length of 4.3 in. (10.9 cm).
Although the penneability data are not absolute, the
equations in this paper offer a way to evaluate perforating results when different perforating techniques are
used. Both these perforation jobs were weli executed
with excellent results: however, the comparison shows
that perforating underbalanced with a large gun provides
a much more efficient completion.
Well C
An offshore Louisiana gas well was perforated overbalanced by 200 psi (1380 kPa) in brine with 8 shots/ft
(26 shots/m) in the top 12 ft (3.7 m) of a 16-ft (4.9-m)
pay zone. The penneability was computed to be 318 md
from a pressure-buildup test after a four-point flow test
upon completion of the zone. The skin, s' =5 + D q' was
11.15. It was assumed that 5 =5 dl" so that
Penneanilit\
Ratio. k.le Ik' R
0.165
Q.()Q
Perforation Data
Tubing gun 00, in.
Shots/ft
Phasing, degrees
Pressure underbalance, psi
Distance perforated, ft
Perforation radius, , p' in.'
Perforation length, L p ' in.'
Perforation geometry, skin factor
Well Data
Flow rate, q, Mscf/D
Shutin BHP, psia
Flowing BHP, psia
Pressure drawdown, psi
Temperature, OR
Gas gravity'
Gas viscosity, cp'
Gas deviation factor, Z'
Drainage radius, ft
Wellbore radius, ft
Wellbore damage permeability ratio, k d1k R
Estimated data
24
Well D
Well E
19/ 16
4
3%
800
10
0.14
4
1.8
120
2,085
10
0.2
9
0
1,676
2,562
2,154
408
580
0.65
0.025
0.9
660
0.35
0.5
2,127
2,553
2,437
116
580
0.65
0.025
0.9
660
0.35
0.5
Other Implications of
Perforation Analysis
Although the equations used here offer a simplified approach to damage around the wellbore, they do pinpoint
the location of significant damage that greatly restricts
oil and gas production.
The most significant damage around the wellbore in a
completed well is that small damaged zone around each
perforation that is only about 0.5 in. (1.3 cm) thick. This
suggests that acidizing need only remove the damage
within this thin cylinder around the perforation but that
acid must remove the damage from all the perforations to
be effective. Therefore, adequate diverting agents for
acids are necessary to acidize high-rate completions in
high-permeability reservoirs adequately. Moreover,
because of the thin damage zone around each perforation, the contact time of the acid with the perfQration is
more important than the total volume of acid pumped into the formation. Large vqlumes of acid pumped quickly
through a few perforations will be an inefficient use of
acid and will give results that are either short-lived or unsatisfactory. Using low injection rates and effective
diverting agents should remove all damage around
perforations.
In most wells that Conoco Inc. operates, the
permeabilities are low enough that reservoir flow controls production rate, and fracturing is needed to make
these wells economical: however, along the U.S. gulf
coast the permeabilities are very high, and the greatest
loss of pressure during flow is a.t the well bore . This is the
kdfkR
Perforating Fluid
Perforating
Fluid Pressure
(psi)
0.5
0.5
weighted mud
brine
brine
brine
brine
+500
-500
+200
-800
-2,085
kR
Well
-
B
C
D
E
(md)
ka/k R
200
8.6
318
70
70
0.03
1
0.09 to 0.165
0.20
0.5
kaplka
0.4
1.0
Perforation Parameters
Perforating Conditions
Fluid
high solids, mud in
low solids, mud in hole
unfiltered salt water
filtered salt water
filtered salt water
clean, nondamaging fluid,
best techniques available
clean, nondamaging, ideal
perforator
+
+
+
+
25
Core Flow
Efficiency
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.15
to
to
to
to
to
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.9
0.30 to 0.50
1.0
1.00 to 1.00
0.16
0.25
r"
r;
r", =
s"
Conclusions
1. In actual perforated oil and gas wells, the long-held
rule of thumb that 4 shots/ft (13 shots/m) with 6-in.
(1S.2-cm) penetration is equivalent to an openhole completion is not valid.
2. The use of the openhole equivalent wellbore used in
well testing to describe non-Darcy flow into a perforated
well is inadequate and should be discarded.
3. The turbulence coefficient data provided by Katz et
al. 11-12 can be used to describe pressure losses during
non-Darcy flow into a wellbore when the number,
physical geometry, and condition of real perforations are
considered.
4. The geometry of perforations can be designed and
dimensions can be estimated from data provided by perforating service companies.
5. The guidelines provided by Klotz et al. 3 are valid
and can be used to estimate permeabilities of the compacted zone around a perforation for different perforating
fluids and pressure differentials.
6. Well performance, perforating procedures. and onsite inspection of perforating operations can be analyzed
to define perforation condition in a well more accurately.
7. The model presented can be used with flowing well
analysis to predict the economic effects of perforating
conditions and the number and size of perforations so
that engineers and production managers can make more
rational decisions.
Nomenclature
B Ii = gas formation volume factor, res bbl/Mscf
(res m 3 I std m 3 )
D = rate parameter for non-Darcy flow,
\/(MscflD) (d/std m 3 )
h
net pay. ft (m)
k Jk = ratio of the permeability of a perforation's
compacted zone to the permeability of a
core before perforating (from API testing)
k" = permeability of damaged zone around
wellbore as a result of invasion by
drilling mud and cement filtrates, md
permeability of damaged, compacted zone
around perforation in rock, md
k R = reservoir permeability, md
L" = length of perforation in rock, ft (m)
n
total number of perforations
P R = average reservoir pressure (bottomhole static
pressure), psia (kPa)
PlIf = flowing BHP, psia (kPa)
q ;;;;; gas flow rate. MscflD (std m 3 Id)
== radius of damaged zone around wellbore,
ft (m)
k"" ; ; ;
r"
s I"
s"
T =
~
{3 =
/' ;;;;;
iJ. ;;;;;
tion. ft (m)
.
well drainage radius in reservoir. ft (m)
radius of perforation in rock, ft (m)
wellbore radius (half of bit diameter). ft (m)
overall skin factor for viscous or laminar
Darcy flow through restrictions around
wellbore, dimensionless
skin factor for flow through damaged zone
around we\lbore caused by drilling mud
and cement filtrates
skin factor for flow through damaged and
compacted zone around perforation
skin factor for effect of flow converging
into perforations around wellbore
formation temperature. OR (K)
gas deviation factor, dimensionless
velocity coefficient (for effects of turbulent
or non-Darcy flow through porous
media), 11ft (11m)
gas gravity, dimensionless
viscosity, cp (Pa' s)
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to the management of Conoco Inc. for permission to publish this paper and to the many coworkers
who helped with suggestions and contributed field data,
especially Daryl Fontenot. Bob Burton, Richard Siebenman. Randy Crawford. and Bert Walther.
References
1. Jones, L.G., Blount. E.M .. and Glaze, O.H.: "Use of ShortTerm Multiple-Rate Flow Tests To Predict Pertormance of Wells
Having Turbulence," paper SPE 6133 presented at the 1976 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. New Orleans. Oct.
3-6.
2. Mach. J .. Proano. E .. and Brown. K.E.: "Application of Production Systems Analysis to Determine Completion Sensitivity on
Gas Well Completion." paper 81Pet-13 presented at the ASME
Energy Sources Technical Conference, Houston. Jan. 18-22.
1981.
3. Klotz. J.A .. Krueger. R.F .. and Pye. D.S.: "Effect of Perforation
Damage on Well Productivity," 1. Pel. Tech. (Nov. 1974)
1303-14: Trails .. AIME. 257.
4. Saucier. RJ. and Lands. J.F. Jr.: "A Labordtory Study of Perforations in Stressed Formation Rocks." 1. Pel. Tc'c!1. (Sept.
1978) 1347-53: Trails .. AIME. 265.
5. Bell. W.T .. Brieger. E.F .. and Harrigan. J.W. Jr.: "Labordtory
Flow Characteristics of Gun Perforations, '. 1. Pel. Tech. (Sept.
1972) 1095-1103.
6. Hong, K.C.: "Productivity of Perforated Completions in Formations With or Without Damage," 1. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1975)
1027-38: Trails .. AIME. 259.
7. Locke. S.: .. An Advanced Method for Predicting the Productivity
Ratio of a Perforated Well." 1. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1981) 2481-88.
8. Harris. M.H.: "How to Estimate Production from Ultrddeep Perfordtions. Oil alld Gas 1. (Jan. I. 1968) 88-91.
9. Harris, M.H.: "The Effect of Pert'orating on Well Productivity."
1. Pet. Tech. (April 1966) 518-28: TraIlS .. AIME. 237.
10. Matthews. C.S. and Russell. D.G.: Pn',lsure Buildup lind Floit'
Tests in Wells, Monogrdph Series. SPE. Dallas (1967) 1. 21.
II. Katz. D.L. el al.: Handhook of Natural Gas Elll!illeerilll!,
McGraw-Hili Book Co. Inc .. New York City (1959) 405.
12. Firoozabadi. A. and Katz. D.L.: "An Analysis of High-Velocity
Gas Flow Through Porous Media," 1. Pel. Tech. (Feb. 1979)
211-16.
26
APPENDIX A
1,424J,tz Tq
----[lnO.472(r e lr w )] .
...
(A-I)
Lp
kRh
r~p)'
(A-5)
where
n
number of perforations,
Lp = length of perforation in formation, ft (m),
rp = radius of perforation, ft (m), and
r dp =
1,424J,tz Tq
----[ln0.472(r e 1r II')]
The turbulence coefficient. {3. is a function 'of the reduced permeability around the perforation, k dp ' according to Eq. A-3.
Eq. A-5 can be related to the general radial flow equation (Eq. I) to express D in terms of perforation dimensions and properties of the compacted zone around the
perforation:
kRh
(I I)
~ I' q-zT
~
3.161(10) - I -{3
--+
rw re.
..................
. ... (A-2)
h2
. .....................
D=2.22(lO)
15
(kRhl')
J,t
[~(~ _ _
I )].
n
Lp
rp
rdp
(A-3)
D=2.22(1O)-15 (kRhl') (
/I
(3dP~
n 2 Lp ~r p
) .....
(A-7)'
PF=:=
wLp~rp
......................... (A-8)
+----------~--h2
. (A-4)
27
Turbulent
Skin
Model
Reservoir
28
28
28
29
126
11
55
68
209
28
143
1,073
1,246
28
17
64
109
28
12
42
Total
29
APPENDIX B
200
= 3.9.
8,080
245
1.415
0.035
200
26
1,320
4.5
10,177
,lp2
Flow Path
reservoir
laminar skin
turbulent skin
PR
~
2.41
11.46
86.13
100
0.25k R =50
0.1 kd=5
2
180
0.75
0.38
0.5
'In this example. gas properties are evaluated at the reServoir pressure.
",d =
50
1.375
I) In-0.375
10.177psia
1.375 ft. and' w =0.375 11
28
Approximate
Pressure Drop
(psi)
30
143
1,073
1,246
Sdp
(n:
::)In(:;)
)(:;
(1.424)(0.035)(1.415)(755)(8,080)
(200)(26)
26
(200 200) (0.19+0.5)
(52)(0.75) -5- - 50 In
0.19
1,320
[ In(0.472)-0.375
= 30.95.
+ 35.3 +(0.03285)(8,080)]
= 77.256 (7.42+35.3+265.4)
= 0.45+3.9+30.95
=
35.3
77,256 (308.1)
Turbulence Parameter, D
f3
2.6(10) 10k
I.~
15(
D=2.22(IO)
,f3y,
n-Lp-rl'
s[
= 2.22(10) - I .
)(kRh)
J.I.
"J.77( IO)~(o.635)
bbl
ep
ft
OF
in.
psi
sef
(52)~(0.75)2(0.0158)
. [(200)(26) ]
0.035
= 0.03285.
x 1.589873
E-OI
x 1.0*
E-03
x 3.048*
E-01
(OF-32)/1.8
x 2.54*
E+OO
x 6.894757
E+OO
x 2.86364
E-02
m3
Pa's
m
C
em
kPa
std m 3
JPT
1.424J.1.::.Tq
kh
29