See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254532443

Design and Evaluation of Perforation Performance Using Dynamic Under

Balance: North Sea Case Histories

Article · September 2010

DOI: 10.2118/135712-MS

CITATION READS

1 742

4 authors, including:

Juan Tovar
Innovative Engineering Systems Ltd
46 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sand Liquefaction in Oil and Gas wells View project

Sand Liquefaction in oil and gas wells View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan Tovar on 24 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 127881

Design and Evaluation of Perforation Performance using Dynamic Under

Balance – North Sea Case Histories
J. Tovar, F. Moreno, Innovative Engineering Systems Global, R. Appleby, G. Cooper, B.
Hamilton, Talisman Energy UK

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control in Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 10–12 February 2010.

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 have not
been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE
copyright.

Abstract
Dynamic under balance DUB pressure is being used by operators to improve completion efficiency and
minimize formation damage. An understanding of the pressures generated at the time of firing the guns allows
the prediction of the level of pressure differential required to overcome the surge pressure generated, leaving a
clean connection between the wellbore and the reservoir. The results reported by different operators indicate
success with the technique; certain criterion has been developed for the determination of the optimum
conditions for its use. From the published information so far, type of reservoir fluid, interval length and
formation mechanical properties are some of the main considerations for a successful design and
implementation of the technique. Talisman Energy UK has used dynamic under balance for perforating a
number of wells in the North Sea. A detailed job design process was implemented starting with the need to
characterize the level of formation damage that existed in the wells. Four (4) main damaging mechanisms
were quantified; damage resulting from fluid and solid’s invasion into the reservoir matrix, mechanical
damage generated during drilling operations and actual damage caused during the perforation process.
Perforation design programs were developed and executed based on a clear understanding of the rock
mechanical response to the dynamic under balance pressures generated by the gun and taking into
consideration perforating debris and fluid inflow required to clean the tunnels. The results from this work
indicates that current design criterion for the selection of the optimum DUB pressure is limited and it is not
clear about the physics and hydrodynamics of the clean up process.

Background
Research during the 1980s and 1990s confirmed that the high static pressure differential between wellbore and
formation often yielded more effective perforations. These studies (Bell W. 1984, King G. 1985) concluded
that rapid influx was responsible for perforation clean up. A 1985 study carried out by Amoco (King G. 1985)
correlated results from 90 wells that were acidized after perforating using tubing conveyed guns and a range
of underbalance pressures. Results did not imply that all perforation damage could be removed, but suggested
that acid stimulation was not necessary or as effective as when sufficient underbalanced pressure was applied.
In 1989, research (Crawford H. 1989) was carried out and underbalance pressures were calculated for gas
wells based in sand production data from sonic logs. This study was combined with the one done by Amoco
to develop correlations for a minimum underbalance required to eliminate the need of acid stimulation.
Until recently, engineers believed that the magnitude and duration of surge flow after underbalance
perforating dominated perforation clean up. Conventional wisdom evolving from the introduction of tubing
conveyed perforating, held that underbalanced perforating would allow the influx of formation fluid into the
wellbore to flush out debris in the perforation tunnels. To date, there are a large number of case histories
(Behrmann L. et al 2002, Marmol A. et al 2006) documenting mostly success while using DUB to remove
perforation’s damage and improving productivity. Talisman Energy is one of the biggest operators in the
North Sea operating over 15 fields (UKCS & Norway) and producing over 100000 bopd. Productivity
impairment is targeted in their well design and intervention in order to produce the fields in an efficient
manner. The utilization of DUB is not new for Talisman however, in order to better understand the
SPE 127881 2

technology and further optimize well productivity detailed reservoir and damage characterization processes
(both analytical and through laboratory test) were carried out in order to understand the prevalent conditions
in the wells at the time of perforating, all operations were carried out using Tubing Conveyed Perforating
TCP.

Reservoir and well information

Well design and laboratory tests were carried out for perforating three (3) wells operated by Talisman Energy
in the UKCS and Norway. Table 1 presents the main well data and reservoir properties for the selected wells
and reservoirs. Two (2) producers and one (1) injector were selected for evaluating the feasibility of using
dynamic underbalance during perforating; the technique was implemented in two of the wells using both
commercially available systems.

Well and reservoir damage characterization

Well and reservoir damage characterization was divided into two areas: existing damage from previous
operations (drilling & completions) and perforating damage. Three (3) main damage mechanisms were
identified as the most severe generated during drilling, these were: filtrate and solid’s invasion from the
drilling mud and mechanical damage around the wellbore. The fundamentals for damage characterization has
already been documented (Jones C. et al 2002, Tovar J. et al 2007), a number of analytical models were then
developed to estimate the magnitude of each damaging mechanism; an extensive laboratory testing program
was also commissioned to aid in the validation of the analytical models.
Filtrate invasion was determined using conventional fluid loss models (Economides M. et al 1989, Civan F.
2007), mechanical damage determination involved development of geomechanical models for each of the
reservoirs, that allowed to calculate the deformation of reservoir rock at the near wellbore as a result of
drilling. Finally, solids invasion was estimated using a particle size model (Wojtanowicz A. et al, 1987) that
identifies the particular plugging mechanisms present at the sand face.
Damage generated during actual perforating was determined using analytical models and well test data. Four
(4) main damaging mechanisms were considered the most representative for these types of reservoirs, these
were: damage caused by partial penetration, well deviation, flow convergence and the crushed zone. The
following paragraphs describe the damage characterization process.

Drilling fluid invasion test

Drilling fluid invasion and return permeability test were carried out in order to investigate the effect of
filtrate and solid’s invasion on core permeability. Results from drilling fluid testing are presented in table 2. It
can be noted that for a mud density of 11.5 ppg LTOBM, very low filtrate values were obtained (< 5 ml) in 98
hours test for a sandstone reservoir at around 13800 feet. Dynamic conditions were used for the first 48 hours
and then static conditions for the remaining of the test.

Solids invasion severity

A solid’s invasion model (Wojtanowicz A. et al 1987) of was used to determine the severity of mud
solid’s invasion into the reservoir matrix. The model is based on the relationship between the mean particle
sizes of mud’s solids and the formation grains. Five (5) plugging mechanisms can be clearly identified, these
are: bridging, shallow invasion, pore blocking, combined invasion and deep invasion. Bridging and shallow
particle invasion are in most cases reversible at the time production starts. However, some of the other
invasion mechanisms are irreversible and require other techniques such as stimulation in order to restore
original formation permeability. Determination of the various solids invasion profiles required a continuous
knowledge of the matrix’s grain size distribution on a foot-by-foot basis. This is obtained using a log-derived
grain size prediction model (Wong T.F. et al 1997, Tovar J. 2009), which allows determination of the main
grain size (D50) or any other grain size on a continuous basis.

The resulting model was calibrated using SEM/Edax data ran on the plugs to identify quantities and reach
of the mud solids. Return permeability testing was also carried out at the laboratory using core samples from
the wells and reservoir, a minimum of 80% permeability recovery threshold was set in order to ensure that the
damage caused by the various mechanism can be removed. We also carried out tests on the effluent (during
coreflood testing) that passed through the core during the formation of the filter cake to better understand
effectiveness of mud system and to quantify levels of solid invasion. The solids in the effluent were analysed
using an electron microscope to deterimine size and spectral analysis was used to determine composition (i.e.
weighting or bridging agent).
SPE 127881 3

Mechanical damage during drilling

A geomechanical model for each of the fields was developed and the mechanical damage determined using
plasticity fundamentals (Charlez P. 1997). The model allows definition of an area around the wellbore where
the mechanical (UCS, E, µ…) and petro-physical properties (K, φ) of the reservoir have been irreversibly
modified. From a mechanical stand-point, a two (2) strength zone is formed, the first one and closer to the
wellbore presents in most cases a lower strength than that of virgin reservoir; the second zone is formed
undisturbed formation rock. The models were calibrated to account for confinement, temperature and hole
size effects. These two (2) strengths also have a major impact on perforating charge performance particularly
in the estimation of penetration. Strength test was carried out using core samples as described in the following
paragraphs.

Integrating drilling damage predictions and results

Figure 1 presents the integration of the analytical models and laboratory test results during the damage
characterization process, mechanical damage and fluid invasion are presented in the first two tracks of figure
1 for producer No. 1, they are compared with charge penetration prediction in order to estimate a “net”
penetration into virgin reservoir. Tracks 3 and 4 illustrate the original permeability compared with the
laboratory test results and solid’s invasion severity. From this figure we can see that the mechanical damage at
the near wellbore area is the main component of all the damage mechanisms quantified reaching almost 18
inches and being present in over 60 percent of the predicted tunnel’s length. The magnitude of this skin
(mechanical) can be determined by calculating the change in permeability in the damage zone and compared
with the original reservoir permeability (Jones C. et al 2002) on a foot-by-foot basis.

Perforation damage prediction

For the four (4) main damaging mechanisms expected from perforating in these wells, their magnitude was
estimated using existing methods (Bell W. et al, 1995). For each well, this was carried out using a variety of
gun specifications in order to assess their benefits and limitations for the proposed applications. Table 3
illustrates the results obtained for each of the skin components for producer No.1. As expected, partial
penetration contributes the higher skin from perforating and the impact of the other damaging mechanisms
together is less (i.e. S < 2). The combined skin from the drilling and perforation processes can then be higher
than is normally assumed.

Perforating system selection

Two (2) commercially available systems were reviewed for the selected wells; Halliburton’s SurgePRO™ and
Schlumberger’s PURE™ systems. The Halliburton SurgePRO™ was selected for the production wells and the
Schlumberger PURE™ system was selected for the injection well. System designs were proposed by both
suppliers based on data provided by the operator, the proposed designs included gun size, configuration, shot
density, orientation, charge type and most importantly level of dynamic underbalance to be applied during
perforating. Gun design data for the injector is presented in table 4. Simulations carried out for the injector
with SPAN® used as data input an overburden of 10450 psi and an UCS of 2800 psi, the predicted perforating
performance results are presented in table 5. A comparison between the assumed rock strength values used for
system design and the continuously derived strength shows significant differences in magnitude, the
assumption that rock strength is continuous through the reservoir results in charge’s penetration values that
are unrealistic and not representative. For the injection well, flow back was not possible therefore, this
restriction influenced the decision to use DUB for perforating.

Formation strength test

Non-destructive, unconfined formation strength test were carried out on core material using a low impact
energy method (Taylor P., Appleby R. 2007). This type of test offers a number of advantages over
conventional strength testing; it does not require special preparation such as plugging, can be carried out at the
core storage facility and an almost unlimited number of measurements can be taken. Static strength test data
was integrated with dynamic strength values to obtain representative strength models. Figure 2a and 2b
illustrates the final strength model for a producer and the injector respectively.

Charge penetration
Estimation of the maximum reach of a perforation charge into the reservoir is a very “polemic” subject in
our the industry today, recent test results indicate significant limitations in the current models used for charge
penetration (Harvey J. et al 2008) prediction particularly in gas bearing sandstone reservoirs. We used a
SPE 127881 4

modified Thompson’s correlation (Thompson G. 1962) that takes into account rock confinement and
formation deformation around the wellbore to predict charge penetration on a continuous foot-by-foot basis.
All charge penetration predictions were compared with all the damaging mechanisms: mechanical damage,
fluid and solid’s invasion generated damage. Some of the simulation tools used by the service companies
underestimate the magnitude of the damaged zone, for the injection well gun performance prediction resulted
in a 39.7” penetration and considered a 5” (14%) damage radius only. Laboratory testing and analytical
modeling indicated that fluid invasion radius only was over 16 “ (43%) resulting in a much larger damaged
zone to be overcome by the charges than that estimated by the suppliers (5”).

Dynamic underbalance determination

Both suppliers were requested to present their gun design and DUB pressure proposed, figures 3a illustrates
the results proposed for the PURE system and for various gun sizes and shot densities. A combined flow and
geomechanical model was then used to determine the DUB required to remove the damage (both drilling and
perforating) during perforation. This model determines both the mechanical integrity of the rock behind the
casing and the inflow required to leave a clean and efficient communication between the well and the
reservoir. Both the volumes of rock and debris as well as their particle sizes are taken into consideration so the
inflow required to clean up the near wellbore and perforation tunnel can be determined. A 7”, 10.8 spf system
was then selected, the proposed DUB was compared with the required pressures and inflow required to clean
up the tunnels as illustrated in figure 3b. Figure 4 illustrates the final inflow comparison for the 2000 psi
DUB chosen for perforating the injector.

For the producer a similar process was carried out, and figure 6 illustrate the dynamic underbalance applied
while perforating producer No. 1 as well as the ideal and actual inflow resulting from the DUB pressure. As
can be observed the applied inflow matches very well the required inflow for the applied dynamic
underbalance all throughout the reservoir section. For both, injector and producer No. 1, the model also
highlighted a large difference as compared with DUB proposed by the suppliers.

Well performance results

Producer No. 1 and the injector were tested in order to determine the remaining level of formation damage
and the actual deliverability/injectivity after perforating (the second producer found poor reservoir quality and
was not completed therefore, not perforated). Table No. 6 presents the results from the test including the
proposed and actual DUB applied during perforating. These results clearly indicate that the selected levels of
dynamic underbalance were sufficient to clean the perforation tunnels and restore productivity. Negative skins
were obtained in both cases indicating sufficient clean up and removal of failed rock occurred at the near
wellbore area.

Conclusions
Talisman Energy UK carried out a detailed evaluation of applying a dynamic underbalance pressure for
perforating two (2) production wells in the UKCS and one (1) injection well in the Norwegian sector of the
North Sea. A single producer and an injector were perforated using the technique, providing positive results.
In our view we have learnt the following lessons:

• Dynamic underbalance pressure is critical in the removal of formation damage from the near wellbore in
order to maximize productivity/injectivity
• The design process and preparation for its application is intensive and requires a clear understanding of
the formation response to the dynamic underbalance applied, both in mechanical and in flow terms
• A formation damage characterization process is critical to the understanding of the type and magnitude of
the existing formation damage at the near wellbore, laboratory testing programs and analytical models
were used in this process successfully.
• Due to the current limitations in predicting charge penetration, an alternative analytical tool was utilized
for the prediction that allowed estimation of the expected charge penetration on a foot-by-foot basis,
corrections were made for rock confinement and reservoir temperature.
• The predicted level of underbalance proposed by the suppliers proved to be limited, this we believe is the
result of over simplification of the well and reservoir data used for predicting gun performance.
• Our results indicate that both operations were a success in terms of perforation’s cleanout and avoidance
of production/injection impairment (skins), negative skins were measured in both perforated wells.
• In certain circumstances DUB might not be the most suitable perforating technique, this is critical in
wells where mechanical integrity (both well and reservoir) might be compromised.
SPE 127881 5

• Alternative new technologies such as reactive charges offer operators other options where well or
reservoir mechanical integrity might not allow the use of DUB.
• DUB perforating provides the operator the opportunity to remove the requirement to backflow injection
wells (whilst still maximizing injectivity)
• The ability to alter the DUB along the interval to be perforated is critical to maximizing productivity /
injectivity.

Acknowledgement

We wish to thank Talisman Energy UK and Innovative Engineering Systems Global for the permission to
publish this paper. We are grateful to I. Patey and his team at Corex UK for the testing work and to the many
people from both the suppliers and offshore personnel in the UK and Norway for their contribution to make
these operations a success.

Nomenclature

Bopd Barrels of oil per day ppg Pounds per gallon

DUB Dynamic underbalance (psi)
D50 Mean grain size (microns)
E Young modulus (psi)
µ Poisson ratio
LTOBM Low toxicity oil based mud
K Permeability (mD)
φ Porosity (%)
UCS Unconfined compressive strength (psi)
S Skin (dimensionless)
TCP Tubing conveyed perforating

References

Bell W.T.: “Perforating Underbalance- evolving techniques,” Journal of Petroleum Engineer, No.10, October 1984
Bell W.T., Sukup R.A. and Tariq S.M.: “Perforating” SPE Monograph, Volume 16, 1995
Behrmann LA, Hughes K , Johnson AB and Walton IC: “New Underbalance perforating techniques increases completion efficiency
and eliminates costly acid stimulation” paper SPE 77364, October 2002
Charlez P.: “Rock Mechanics”, Volume 1 & 2, Editions Technip, 1991 & 1997
Civan F.: ” Reservoir Formation Damage. Fundamentals, modeling, assessment and mitigation”, Gulf Publishing, 2007
Crawford H.R. “ Underbalance perforation design” paper SPE 19749, October 1989
Economides M. and Nolte N. ” Reservoir Stimulation”, Prentice-Hall, 1989
Haider S.R.: “Self cleaning materials in granular based filtration systems and their application to sand face completions”, MSc. Thesis,
Robert Gordon University, 2008
Harvey J. and Grove B.: “Shaped charge penetration into gas saturated sandstone”, September 2008.
Jones C. and Smart B.G.: Stress Induced Changes in Two-phase Permeability”, SPE paper No. 78155, 2002
Kessler N., Wang Y. and F. Santarelli,:” A simplified Pseudo 3D Model to Evaluate Sand Production Risk in Deviated Cased Holes”,
SPE paper No. 26541, 1993.
King G.E., Anderson A and Binghham M: “ A field study of underbalance pressure necessary to obtain clean perforations Using TCP
perforating,” paper SPE 14321, September 1985
Marmol A., et al “Customized re-perforating with new technologies for optimal drainage and productivity enhancement: East
Venezuelan applications”, paper SPE 103070, 2006
San Filipo D., Brignoli M., et al,: “Sand Production: From Prediction to Management”, SPE paper 38185, June 1997
Thompson G.D.”Effects of formation compressive strength on perforator performance”, API, 1962
Tovar J., Salazar A. and Romero N.: “Integrating Drilling and Geomechanical Damage in Sandstone reservoirs. Identification,
Quantification and Removal,” paper SPE 107611, June 2007
Tovar J.: ”The importance of grain size in reservoirs producing Heavy oils” paper presented at the Sand Management Network
meeting, June 2009
Taylor P.G. and Appleby R.: “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Rock Strength Data in Sanding Prediction Studies: An
application of the Schmidt Hammer Method”, SPE/ paper 101968, 2007
Wojtanowicz A.K. and Langlinais J.P. “Study of the effect of pore blocking mechanisms on formation damage”, SPE paper 16233,
1987
Wong TF. Et al.: “The transition from Brittle faulting to cataclastic flow in porous sandstones: Mechanical deformation”, JGR, Vol 102, 1997
SPE 127881 6

Table 1 - Wells and reservoir data

CHARACTERISTICS WELLS REMARKS

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3
Well type Producer Producer Injector Producers in the UKCS,
injector in the Norwegian
sector
Water depth [feet] 265 195 244 -
Casing size [feet] 7 9 5/8 9 5/8 -
Casing depth [feet] 13669 12947 ft 11874 ft All TVDSS
Deviation [degrees] [30 – 90] < 30 < 45 -
Reservoir Fulmar Fulmar Forties All oil bearing sandstone
reservoirs
Reservoir depth [feet] 12200 TVDSS - 10250 -
Reservoir pressure [psi] 5672 @ 12200 ft 6299 @ 12000 ft 4770 @ 10306 ft -
Net reservoir [feet] 580 735 84 -
BHT [ °F] 297 Zone A 297 273 -
310 Zone B
Reservoir fluid [°API] 37 37 42 -
Tubing size [in] 4½ 7 5½ 17 ppf, L80, packer @ 11020 ft
Completion fluid Inhibited seawater Inhibited seawater Inhibited seawater

Table 2 - Fluid loss test results - LTOBM @ 11.5 ppg Table 3 – Perforating damage components – Producer 1

SAMPLE DYNAMIC STATIC TOTAL

ZONE / 1 2 3 4 3B
No. LOSS [ml] LOSS [ml] [ml / 98
DAMAGE
hrs]
1C 3.7 1.1 4.8 Partial 9.8 3.68 8.2 10.38 11.58
penetration
2A 2.6 0.5 3.1
Wellbore & 0.49 1.20 1.18 0.77 0.77
2B 2.0 0.4 2.4
reservoir
2C 3.6 1.2 4.8 Crushed zone 0.32 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63
2D 3.2 1.0 4.2 Vertical 0.005 0.013 0.001 0.001 0.001
3A 2.2 0.5 2.7 convergent flow
3B 2.6 0.6 3.2 Wellbore effects 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.011 0.001
4D 3.5 0.8 4.3 Total skin 10.61 5.53 10.01 11.79 12.98
SPE 127881 7

Figure 1 – Filtrate, solids and mechanical damage predictions calibrated with laboratory test results – Producer No. 1

Table 4 – Gun design data – Injector Table 5 – Gun performance prediction - Injector

PARAMETER VALUE REMARKS

PARAMETER VALUE REMARKS
Gun size 7.00 in 13 3/8” casing
Wellbore damage 5” ???
Shot density 10 spf
Penetration 39.7 in API pen. 53.2 in
Orientation 135°/45° From SPAN® runs
Final skin - 1.38
PURE chambers 0.5 spf
Injectivity ratio 1.4 Baseline for OH = 1.0
Type of charge HMX PJ Omega 4505
UBD 2000 psi
Charge 38.8 gr -
Perforating 73.78 ft 84 feet gross interval
interval
Well fluids 8.6 ppg Seawater
Deviation < 40° -
BHT 273 °F At 10900 feet
Pore pressure 4900 psi 2008 level
SPE 127881 8

a) b)

Figure 2 – Calibrated strength models. a) Production well No. 1, b) Injection well

a) b)

Figure 3 – DUB and inflow comparison for the injector. a) Proposed by PURE b) Inflow corresponding to proposed DUB
 SPE 127881 9

Figure 4 – Final inflow for selected DUB – Injector Figure 5 – Final inflow for selected DUB – Producer No 1

Table 6 – Post- perforating data and results

WELL / PRODUCER INJECTOR REMARKS

PARAMETERS
Proposed DUB 2600 psi 1600 psi For the producer the DUB was at the high
permeability zones
Applied DUB 3400 psi 2000 psi -
Original skin > 11 <7 For most of the 6 layers
Post-perforating - 2.3 - 1.38 II 2.8 bpd/psi, Q = 8300 bwpd (pre-fracture)
skin

View publication stats