@

The Effect of I?etiorating

Conditions on Well Pefiormance
Harry O. McLeod Jr., SPE, Conoco Inc.

summary
The productivity of a perforated gas well is affected These geneml terms, s and Dq, are evaluated by tran-
strongly by norr-Darcy or turbulent flow through the sient pressure testing, or they can be determined by
compacted zone around each perforation. The turbulence multirate flow tests. They provide a measure of total ad-
coefficient depends on the permeability of this com- dhional pressure drop caused by wellbore damage and
pacted zone. Thk permeability, a function of perforation turbulent flow. In evaluating well completions or pro-
condition, can be used with perforation dimensions to posing a certain way of perforating, we need a more
predict gas well performance. specific relationship to wellbore geometry and condhion. ..
By analyzing the effect of perforations on welI flow
Introduction from expwimeoti parumelers from Iaborutog perfom-
Recent work by Jones et al. 1 and Mach et al. 2 describes tion tests, 3 one can show the dominating influence of
pressure drop in turbulent flow through gravel-packed resl perforations on wellbore pressure drops in a high-
perforations. No method has been presented yet to pemleabiIity formation. These same procedures also can
describe similarly turbulent flow ii perforated wells that be used for low-permeability formations; however, the
are not graveI packed. This paper presents an approach perforation effect is not as striking as in a high-permea-
to this prubIem. It can be used to analyze producing gas bility formation.
wells, or it can be combkred with flowing well analysis 2 Fig. 1 shows a simple schematic of a perforation con-
to calcu[ate the perforations needed TO complete a gas nected to the wellbore. Around each perforation made in
well in a consolidated or competent formation, rock there exists a compacted zone with a thickness of I
about 0.5 in. (1 .25 cm). 3-5 The permeability of thk
The General Radial Gas Ffow Equation
compacted zone will vary from 10 to 25% .of the
Gas flow into a perforated well can be described by the permeability of the rock just before perforating. The
well-known equation compaction takes place when the hole is created by the
impact of the disintegmted shaped charge metal liner.
The permeability can be reduced fwher by the presence
of dirty perforating fluids or driling mud, partictdady
when pressure forces fluid into the perforation. For a
petiorated well, the factor D is defined as follows.
[ln(O.472 r,/rW)+$+Dq], . . . . .(1)

The skin factor, s, accounts for viscous flow through the ~=2’2’’”’-(&p)(?)?),(2’
damaged zone around the wellbore, including the effects
of perforations. The term Dq accounts for the extm This equation is developed irr Appendix A along with the
PESSUE drop as a resuk of turbulent gas flow around the equation defining fidp,
wellbore. Other terms are defined in the Nomenclature.

0149-213S183,V01?.06@$00.25
C.pqr!gkt 1’3s3 Sa.ieb d Petroleum En.$nem IJi AIME @dp ‘2.6(W 10bp-1”2.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)

JANUARY 19S3 31

I
 Kfotz .et al. 3 vointed out that the permeability of the
I+r-l compacted zone is less than the wellbore permeability,
which has been reduced by drilling fluid and cement
filtmtes. For example, if the wellbore permeability is
40% of the original reservoir permeability, the
permeability of the compacted zone may be 10% of the
wellbore permeability, or 4% of the reservoir
permeability.
An example of calculatirr~ gas well drawdown is
rrresented irr Armendix
.. B and demonstrates the a13ulica-
. .
fion of these equations and concepts.

Alternate Form of the General

Radial Gas Flow Equation
When gas pressure exceeds 4,000 psia (27 600 kpa), the
following equation should be used since By is nearly
constmt above 4,000 psia (27 600 kPa). Below 4,000
psia (27 600 kPa), the multiple w is more nearly con-
stant, and Eq. 1 is preferred. Eq. 1 is, satisfactory for
high pressure if the pressure drawdown is less than 1,000
psi (6895 Wa).

141.2qpBg
FR–p.f=—
kRh [
ln(0.472rJrW)+s+Dq
1 ,

, . . . . . . . ...(7)

where

q = gas flOw rate, Mscf/D (std m3/d),

Fig. 1—FIow into a perforation. Bg = reservoir volume factor, res bbllMscf
(res m3/std m3), and

Bg=5.035~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...”......(8)
The effective laminar skin factor, s, can be expressed P
as a sum of independent skin factors resulting fmm per-
The termss and D are the same as in Eq. 1.
foration geometty (SP), wellbore damage from drilling
and cementing (s ~), and the damage to the compacted Application of Proposed Equations
zone around the perforation (sdp ).
There may bean error of 20% or less in calculating pro-
ductivity of a perforated completion with Eqs. 5 and 6;
s=sp+s,j+s Jp. . . . . . ...(4)
however, they are more convenient to use than the more
nearly, accurate nomography of Hong6 or Locke. 7 They
are appropriate to use in the analysis of pm forated com-
The perforation geometry skin factor, SP, is found from
plitioirs and in the design of well perforating, especially
several correlations that exist in the literature. 6-9 The
for high-permeability gas wells. The equations are also
easiest to rise are those of Hong6 or Locke. 7
convenient for programming and use in flowing well
The following equation for the damaged wellbore is
analysisz to predict the flow rate from a gas well. Thk
derived for radial floy into a wellbore and is well known
apprOach is verified by analyses of several perforated gas
in the literature. 10
wells as presented in the following.

Well A

This well was the first to show the impact of petioration

Sd=hrdkw
()~’–1 ................. ...(5) condhion
pemreability
on the
formation.
performance
The
of
well
a gas
was
well
completed
in a high-
in a
200-md formation and was perforated in an 1 S-Ibm/gal
The next equation for the compacted zone around the
(2160-kg/m3) mud with a 3j&in. (8-cm) gun at 2 shotshl
perforation also can be derived from the radial flow
(2 shots/O.3 m). When production started at about 8,000
equation.
Mscf/D (229 090 std m3/d), the’ pressure drop, or
drawdown, into the wellbore was about 1,100 psi (7580
I@%). More than 90% of this pressure drop was thrOugh
the compacted zone mound each petioration, and more
“,=(+)( ’:)(:-:) (’) than 80% of this pressure drop through the perforation

32 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 TABLE 1 -FLOWING GAS WELL DATA, WELL A

. q, Mscf/D
ER, psi8
7,152

12,315
8,080 I
10,177

.Dti($’ p$ia 11,458 9,070

~, psia 857 1,107
p, psia 11,887 9,824

z 1.55 1,38” 1.26 1.10 1.05 1.04

B, res bbl/Mscf 0.463 0.506 0.54s 0.636 0.673 0.693

A CP 0.0330 0,034 0.031 0.0265 0.0245 0.0240

5.1 .5.3 6.? 6.7 5.2 6:1

% md

.
ma was caused by non-Darcy or turbulent flow. TABLE 2-WELL A DATA

This well was analyzed with the flow data in Table I

Formation permeability, rnd’ 200
and the completion data in “Table 2. A piefiminary
Net pay, perforated, ft 26
anelysis showed that turbulent flow controlled the 1,320
Estimated drainage radius, re, ft
pressure drop through the completion ([email protected] Wellbore ‘radius, ft 0,375
perfmstions). we perforations’, dainaged compacted Shok/ft, nh. 2
13adiusof perforated hole, re, in... 0.19
zqne provided mom than 90% of the total pfessurc
perforation penetration, LP, m.:’ 9
drawdoivn. Flow rate and pressure data (Table 1) w&e
Gas gravity 0.635
availab[e from production tests made over a’ period of 12 Formation temperature, OF 245
months. These data were analyzed with Eqs. 2, 3, and” 6

thcough 8 by assuming:that SP” ,and, s~ were negligible. +.slima!ed l,OM ..dmval, GO,. dst,,
. .Gtimat64 from API wforti”g data
The gas ppperty data and calculat&d compacted-zone
permeability, kdp; akp are shpivn in Table 1. The results
are surprisingly consistent and cpntin ithe turbulence ef-
fect since data were analyzed at two different flow retex

of 5,OOO and S,000 Mscf/D (143, 180. ~nd 229090 std Locke’s corml?tion7 was used to. find an SP of 1.7 for

m? /d), The’perforation p&neability, kJP ,’ is 2.5 to 3 % 4 shots/ft (13 shots/m), 4 in. (10.1 cm) deep, at 0° phas-

of original or undamaged formation permeability, and ing. This isverycloke tothe; of 1.8 obtained by well

thk is tinsistent w“ith’laboratory measurements on cores testing that indicates $at $~ and $“dp are near zero:

perforated in mud with preksu”re filtration into the core. therefore, ~ttle or no damage existed at the time of
testing around the perforated holes (i.e., kdp=kdy

WelI B kR =8.6 red).

One can calculate the near-perforation pcfieability in-
This California well was perfo”&ed in brine with an
dependently with the non-Damy Patimeter, D, with Eqs.
underbalance of 500 pii (3450 kPa). A 1)( ~-in. (4-cm)
2’and 3.
through-tubing gun perfom.ted 4 shots/ft (13 shot$/m) at
O“ izhasing: This well was combleted in 1972 and has
bee; testes sev&d times since I; det.&ine”gas reserves
‘D=O.W5=2.22(10) ‘]5
in. this single-well ~servoir. TWO excellent pressure-
(-)(?)
buildup tests h8ve been made following :emisteady-stale
flow periods at two different flow rates.. Analyses of (L3.6)04
these prcssimc-buildup tests provided the following data.
=2.22(10)-15
.[ (140) ~(o.33)2(o.oIfM) 1
Rare 300
“Year
.—
i977
(Mscf/D)

5,250
sr=s+Dq”,

9.6
!.,. ,.
(-)
O.om’
..,, . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(9)

1978 3,300 6,7

Solving for BdP, we obtain

Whh these two data points, s and D were calculated to be
1,8 and 0,0015 per thousand standard cubic foot per day
f3dp=l.75(lo)9 ft-~
(stnndard cubic m$terper day), respectively. The net pay
of 35 X (107 m) was perforated in a gross interval at +.6(10) 10 kdp-l.z,x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(10)
7,447 to 7,5Q2 ft (227Il to 2287 m)” through 2j&in.
(6-cm) tubing, with an griginal bottomhole. pressu~ kdP=9.5 md.
(BHP) of 3,555 psi. (24 510 i+.).
API perfomking data were used to estimate perfo~tion This is very C1OSC to but slightly higher than the 8.6 md
hplc size. Lp was 4 in. (10.2 cm), orO.33 ft (0,1 m), and
found frmiz tbe ptesstiie-buildup tests. If ffie perfomtion
rp was 0.125 in. (0.3 cm), or 0;0104 ft (0.0032 m).
penetration is changed $ightly fmm 4 to 4.2 in. ( 10.2 to
Viscosity of the 0.6-gmvity gas wits ~timided to be 10.7 cm), $e calculated /c<jP equuls 8.6 md exactly.
0.021 cp (21x 10+ Pas). These data were used to
calculate the penqeabiIit y. of the near-petiwation rock. V* .7.s3(,0] “ m -’

JANUARY 1983 “ 33
 TABLE 3–WELL C DATA Klotz et al. 3 for a well perfomted overbalanced in
fitercd brine.
Gas gravity, ~ 0.6
Additional data used in the preceding calculations sm
Perforation radius in rock, rp, in. 025

Radius Of comPacted zone around given in Table 3.

perforation, rdp, in. 0.25 + 0.5= 0.75

Gas flow rate, q, Mscf/D 6,240

Wells D and E
Net.pay, h, ft
Viscosity, p, cp 0.02:: Data weri. obt6ined* from offset wells completed in the
SWlcox-Slick formation in Live Oak County, TX. Well
D was perftirated with a 1~,-in. (4,cm) thr&gh-tnbing
gun and whh a pressure iznderbalance of 800 psi (5515

This analysis shows that no permanent damage was kpa). Well E was perforated with a 3~-in. (8.6-cm)
created by this underbalanced perforating technique. It tubmg-ron gun’ and with a pressure underbalance of
~so shows that clean, small perforations still can restrict 2,085 psi (14 375 kPa). Data prcwidcd or estimated are

flow in a gas well be&ause of non-Darcy flow into small shown in Table 4.
petiomtions. This restriction can be removed or greatly No pressure-buildup test da; or com c@ were

~duced by more or larger perfmqtions. available. The flow data frnrn Well E were ,ysed to
calculate a formation p:rineability of 70 md by assuining
WelI C that !kc/k= 1” for, the perfomtion zone (i.e., kdp =kd =
0.5kR). This assumes’.idcal perforating; Then “Well D
An offshore Louisiana gas yell was perfocsted over-
was evaluated with a kR of 79 md, and a k~[kd of 0.4
balanced by 200 psi. (1380 Wa) in brine with 8 shots/ft
was found for a perforation .len@ of 4.3 in. (10.9 cm).
(26 shots/m) in the top 12 ft”(3.7 m) of a 16-ft (4.9-m)
AMR5ugh the permeabdity data arc not absolute, the
pay zone. The penqeabilhy was computedtobe318 md
equations in this paper offer a way to evaltite per-
from a pressure-buildup fest after a four-point flow test
forating rcs~ta when different perforating techniques are
upon completion of the zone. “The skin, s‘ =s +D ~, was
used. Both these perforation jobs were well executed
11.15. It wa: assumed !hat s=s~p, so that.
with excellent results; however, the comparison shows
that p&’foratihg underbalanced with a large gun provides
S:= S+DQ=$JP+DQ=l!.15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(11)
a much more efficient completion.

Eqs. 2, 3, and” 6 ‘were combined with Eq. 1 to get one

Res@ts of .Perfora~ion Aqalysis
equation with one unknown, kdp. Thk was found to be
as follows” for two assumed perforation lengths. Table 5 summarizes the p&forution conditions cal~ulated
from example well data and matches those numbem

Perforation Commcted Zone recommended by Klotz et al, 3 except for Well B. The
Length, LP Pemi’qbility, kdP Permeability tests on Well B took place 5 and 6 years after comple-
(in.) (red) Ratio, k.,, /kR tion. At that point any damage that occurred during per-
6 52,6 0.165 forating had disappeared, perhaps by gas flow drying, out
9 28.6 0.09
and/nr eroding the compacted zone. ,I?low tests mide im-

This is in the ,mge of perforation condhion proposed by .Mnters, G,A, Per,.,.] mmmwnicati.n, GeoVann [“c., [0,1,1981]

TABLE 4—WELL PERFORATING AND FLOW TEST DATA,

WELLS D AND E

Well O Well E

Petioration Data

Tubing gun OD, in. 19A, 33A

. . .
Sh.ts/fi 4 4
Phasing, degrees 0 120
Pressure underbalance, psi too 2,0s5
Distance perforated, fi 10 io

Perforation radius, rp, in. - 0.14 0.2

Perfcqtinn length, LP, ‘in.. 4 9
Perforation geometry, skin factor 1.8 0
Well Data

Flow rate, q, Mscf/D 1,676 2,127

Shut-in BHP, psia 2,562 2,553
Flowing BHP, psia 2,154 2,437
Pressure drawdown, psi 408 116
Temperature, ‘“R- 580 580
Gas gravity’ 0.65 0.65
Gas viscositj, cp. 0.025 0.025
Gas deviation factor, z, ,0.9 0.9
Orainage radius, ft 660 660
Wellbore radius, ff 0.35 0,35
Wellbore damage permeability ratio, k./kR 0.5 0,5

‘Estirmled data,

34 10 URNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

medkdely after completion showed a lower productivity bring in a natural completion, or he can recommend less
that gradually improved, but this early improvement is expense on well preparation and perforating in favor of
attributed to cleanup of brine and filtrate from the the subsequent expense and risk of remedial acidizing, or
wellbore. This raises the question, ‘ <How long does per- other forms of stimulation. Current field practices and
foration damage persist in a producing well?” We know well response to remedial stimulation are important con-
that it persisted at least 1 year in Well A. Tests on Wells sidemtions in thk decision.
C, D, and E took place shortly after completion and pro-
vide no answer to this question.
Other Implications of
D@ from Ref. 3 (Fig. 6 and Table 1) am summarized Perforation Analysis
hme in Table 6 and may be med for perforation design Although the equations used here offers simplified ap-
based on expected completion conditions. The proach to damage around the weUbore, they do pinpoint
permeability ratios, kc/k, am based on laborato~ data the location of significant damage that greatly restricts
measured on cores perforated under different condhions. oil and ga6 production.
The ratio kdp/kR is probably equaJ to k.lk for weHS per- The most significant damage around the wellbore in a
forated in mud in Table 6 even though the wellbore completed well is that small damaged zone mound each
previously has been damaged by mud filtrate. ActuaI perforation that is only about 0.5 in. (1.3 cm) thick. This
kdp/kR values for the other conditions are not that clear, suggests that acidizing need only remove the damage
and experimental work is needed on perforating cores witbk this Wln cylinder around the perforation but that
that previously have been damaged by mud and cement acid must remove tbe damage from all the perforations to
filtrate. It is my opinion that kdp =(kc/k) Xkd for the be effective. Therefore, adequate diverting agents for
brine-perforated wells. If so, the wellbore condition as a acids ate necessa~ to acidize high-rate completions in
result of drilling and cementing is a significant factor high-permeability reservoim adequately. Moreover,
even when excellent petiorating procedures are used. because of the thin damage zone around each perfora-
Not enough is known about the effect of drilling fluid, tion, the contact time of the acid with the perforation is
and cement filtrates on various sandstones, Up to this more important than the total volume of acid pumped in-
time, tbe effects of drilling and perforating all have been to the formation. Large volumes of acid pumped quickly
lumped into one skin factor when a WCII is tested. I hope through a few perforations will be an inefficient use of
that the approach presented in this paper will allow acid and will give results that are either shorn-lived or un-
separation of the effects of drlling and cementing from satisfactory., Using low injection rates and effective
perforating so that more rational and economical deci- diverting agents should remove all damage around
sions can be made on the drilling and completing of oil perforations.
and gas wells. In most wells that Conoco Inc. operates, the
After a well is drilled, cased and cemented, an petmeabilities are low enough that reservoir flow con-
engineer can use the technique presented here to select trols production rate, and fracturing is needed to @r-e
the best perforating procedures and size and number of these wells economical; however, along the U.S. gulf
shots to complete a well for optimal performance. He coast the permeabilities are very high, and the greatest
can recbmmend more care and expense in perforating to loss of pressure during flow is at the wellbore. This is the

TABLE 5–SUMMARY OF PERFORATION CONDITION, EXAMPLE WELLS

Perforating

Fluid Pressure

Well (~d) ktilre k.Jkd _ kd/kR Perforating Fluid (psi)

A 200 0.03 — weighted mud + 500

B 8.6 1 — brine -500

c 318 0.09 to 0.165 — — brine + 200

D 70 0,20 0.4 0.5 brine -800

E 70 0.5 1.0 0.5 brine -2,085

TABLE 6—GUIDELINES FOR THE EFFECT OF PERFORATING

CONDITIONS ON PERFORATION QUALITY

Perforating Conditions Perforation Parameters

Core Flow

Fluid .@_ Efficiency k [k

— L
high solids, mud in hole + 0,3 0.01 to 0.03
low solids, mud in hole + 0.4 0.02 to 0.04
unfiltered salt water + 0.5 0.04 to 0.06

filtered salt water + 0.7 0.08 to 0.16

filtered salt water , 0.8 0.15 to 0.25

clean, nondamaging fluid,

best techniques available - 0.9 0.30 tn 0.50

clean, nondamaging, ideal

perforator 1,0 i .00 to 1.00

JANuARY 1983 35
zone with which we as well completion engineers are rdP = radius of compacted zone around perfom-
concerned. The type of equations- presented-and odrer tion, ft (m)
similar ones can be very helpful to us in designing com- r. = weff dminage radius. in rcsetvoir, ft (m)
pletions. Focusing on the flow either into or out of per- rp = ratilus of perforation in rock, ft (m)
forations that exist around the wellbore should help us in
r~ = wellbore radius (haff of bit diameter), ft (m)
the design and selection of completion ffuids; fluid loss .7 = OVemll skin factor for viscous or Iamimr
control additives for completion fluids; gravel packing
Darcy flow through restrictions arouud
with viscous, gelled fluids; acidizing; and plastic sand
wellbme, dimensionless
consolidation.
Sd = skin factor for flow through damaged zone
Conclusions around wellbore caused by drilling mud

1. In actual perforated oil and gas wells, the long-held and cement tikrates

rule of thumb that 4 shots/ft (13 shots/m) with 6-in. Sdp = Skin fnctor fOr flow through damaged and
(15 .2-cm) penetration is equivalent to an openhole com- compacted zone around perforation
pletion is not vohd. sp = skin factor for effect of flow converging
2. The use of the openhoIe equivalent welfbore used in into pettomtions around weffbore
well testing to describe non-Darcy flow into a perforated T = formation tempemmre, “R (K)
well is inadequate and should be discarded. Z. = gas deviation
factor, dlmensionless
3. The turbulence coefficient duta provided by Katz ef
@ = velOcitY Cneffkient (for effects of turbulent
al. 11“12 can be used to describe pressure losses during
or non-Dmcy flow through porous
non-Darcy flow into a wellbore when the number,
media), l/ft (Urn)
physical geometry, and condition of real perforations are.
considered, -r = gas gmviv, ~mensiOnless
4. The geometry of perforations can be designed and Y = viscOsityj cp (pa. S)
dimensions can be estimated fromdatu provided by per-
forating sefvice companies.
5. The guidelines provided by Klotz et al. 3 are valid Acknowledgments
und CUIJ be used to estimate permeabflities of the com- 1am grateful to the management of Conocn Inc. for per-
pacted zone around a perforation for different perfomting mission to publish this paper and to fhe many coworkem
fluids and pressure differentials. who helped with suggestions and contributed field data,
6. Well performance, perforating pmcedurea, and on- especially DaryI Fontenot, Bob Burton, Richard Sieben-
site inspection of perforating operations cam be analyzed man, Randy Crawford, and Bert Walther.
to define perforation condition in a well more accurately.
7. Tbe model presented cum be used with flowing well
analysis to p~dict the economic effects of perforating References
conditions and the number and size of perfomtions so 1. Jones, LG., Blixmt, E. M., and Glaze, O. H.: ‘Ike of Shom-
that engineers and production managem can make more T.rm Mnltiple-Rate Flow Tests To Pcedict Performamc of WelIs

Having Turbulence,’ 3 paper SPE 6133 presented at the 1976 SPE

rstional decisions.
Annual Technical Co. fercnce and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct.
3-6,
Nomenclature
2, Mach, J,, Pmano, E., and Brown, K. E.: ‘.Applic.ation of Produc-

Bg = gas formation volume factor, res bbl/Mscf tion Systems Analysis to Determine Completion Sensitivity on

Oas Well Completion,x > paper 8 I-Pet-13 presented at the ASME

(res m3/std m3)
Energy Sources Technical Con fmence, Houston, Jan, 1 S-22,
D = rate ‘parameter for non-Darcy flow, 19s1.

l/(Mscf/D) (d/std m3) 3. Klotz, J. A., Kmeger, RF., and Pye, D. S.: ‘. Effect of Perforation
Damage o. Well Pmducdvity,>’ J. PeL Tech. (Nov. 1974)
h = net pay, ft (m)
1303-14 Trans., AJME, 237.
kclk = ratio of the permeability of “a perforation’s 4. ,%.ci.r, R.J. md Lands, J.F. Jr.: ‘A L.bonumy Study of Per-
compacted zone to the pertneabllity of a fwaticms in Stressed Formation Rocks,,z J. Pet. Tech. (Sept.
1978) 1347-53; Trans. , AIME, 265.
core before perforating (from API testing)
5. Bell, W. T., Brieger, E. F., and Han’ig.m, J.W. Jr.: .. Laboratory
kd = permeability of damaged zone around
Flow Characteristics of G.” Perfmatioris,,, 3. Pet. Tech, (Sept.
weJlbore as a result of invasion by 1972) 1095-1103.

drilling mud and cement filtrutes, md 6. Hong, K. C.: <‘Productivity of Perforated Completions in Forma-
tions With m Withow Damage,,, J. Pa. Tech. (Aug. 1975)
kdp = permeability of damaged, compacted zone
1027-38; Trans.. NME. 259.
around petioration, in rock, md 7. Locke, S.: “An Advanced Method for Predicdrrg tie Productivity
Ratio of a Perforated Well,>, J, Pa. Tech, (Dec. 19S1) 2481-88.
kR = resemoir permeability, md
8. Harris, M. H,: <‘How to Estimate Production fmm Ultmdeep P.r-
Lo = length of perforation in rock, ft (m)
foradom,, > 0([ and Gas J. (Jam. 1, i9fiX~ 88-91.
n = totaJ number of perfomtions 9. Harris, M. H.: “The Effect of Perfoc rating on Well productivity,’,
J. Pa. Tech. (April 1966) 518.2% Tram., N [ME, 237.
~R = average reservoir pressure (bottomhole static
[0. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D. G.: F’r<SS.re. Buildup md FIBW
pressufc), psia (kPa)
Tt’srJ in Wells, Monomtmh . Series. SPE, DaJlas [1967) 1.21.
p wf = flowing BHP, psia (kPa) 11. KaQ. D.L. et al.: Handbook of Natural Gm Emirweritw.
~ = ~aS fIOW rate, Mscf/D (std m3/d) ,M@”mw-HiU Book Co. Inc., New-York Cify (1959) 465. -”
12. Fimozabadi, A. and Katz, D. L.: “An Amlysis of High-Velocity
rd = mdius Of damaged zone around wellbore, Gas Flow Through Porous Medn,’, J. PeI. Tech.” (Feb. 1979)
ft (m) 211-[6.

36 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

I
I
APPENDfX A The total messure drou with thk dsmazed zone around
an ideaf w~llbore is no~ 68 psi (469 kpaj, still much less
Flow Into a Gaa Well than the actual 1,100 psi (7580 !&a) found for Well A.
In a high-permeability reservoir (100 md or greater), the Eq. A-5 was derived from Q. A-2 for the extra
pressu~ drop from the drainage boundazy to near the pressure drop caused by turbulent flow into the cylin-
wellbore is small compared with the pressure drop of gas dzical zone around the perforation. It assumes that flow
flow into damaged petiorations. Flow into an undzrnag- is dktributed equafly to z31 perforations, with a uniform
ed wellbore (equivalent to an ideal openhole completion) flux nlong each perforation.
can be calculated with the radial gas flow equation,

3.161 (10)-[2Y qzz Tf3

1,424Pz Tq ~2–p~=
p;_p;f=—_—— fln0.472(r=/r,p)]. (A-1)
nz Lo 2
kRh

Eq. A-1 and data from Well A in Appendix B give a (A-5)

drawdown of 28 psi (193 kpa) through the resewoir with
undamaged permeability.
Eq. A-1 is for viscous or laminm flow. Nonlaminar where
flow, or visco-inetiiaf flow, as it is sometimes czUed, oc-
curs in gas reservoirs. The addhional pressure drop n = number of perforations,
caused by these gas-velocity effects are higher near the LP = length of perforation in formation, ft (m),
weUbore, Previous studies of this effect considered the
‘P = ‘~”s Of pfx’fomtion, ft (m), and
pressure drop into am idealized openhole completion.
Tdp = rzdius of compacted zone around perfom-
Katz et al. 11 presented an equation describing turbulent
tion, ft (m) (see Fig. 1).
or visco-inertizl flow:

1,424Pz Tq The turbulence coefficient, /3, is a function of the E-

~~ –P$f= —[ln0.472(re/rW)]
duced permeability around the perforation, kdp, accord-
kRh
ing to Eq. A-3.
Eq. A-5 can be related to the general did flow equa-
tion (Eq. 1) to express D in terms of petioration dimen-

+
3.161(10)-12(3 -y q2zT
() ‘–1
rw r.
. . ..(A-Z)
sions
perforation:
and propeflies of the compacted zone around the

hz

This equation using laboratory-derived values of ~ has

not matched the effects seen in actual practice. For in- D=222(’0)-’5(y)[
*(:-:)l
stance, in the preceding example, turbulence from gas
flow through a 200-md sand into an openhole wellbore .. .... (A-6)
will produce an added pressure drop of only 1 psi
(7 kPa),
The turbulence caeff~cient usd in Eq. A-2 can be
If we neglect llrdP, we obtain
computed from

S=2.6(10)’Ok-12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-3)

This equation was derived from the straight-line plot of

D=-’-’s(y)(+$j (A-7)
the data provided by Flroozabadi and Katz.”?
The last group of variables can be called a perforation
One can m@ify this equation further by adding a
factor (PF), so that
damaged zone around the wellbore such that kd is equal
toO.1 kR, where thedamaged zone hasatbickness of
0.5 ft (O. 15 m), so that the damaged zone radius is equaf
PF= —.
~,y ,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-g)
to 0.5+rW =0.875 ft (0.267 m).
P2

1,424w Tq
This factor is defined by perforation dimensions and
Pk–PLf=—
kRh permeability of the compacted zone. It is a convenient
factor to use in preliminary flowing well analysis before
specific perforation &!mensions are estimated from API
[ 1n(0472r,’rw)+(:
-’)’n(’””l perforation test data.
Neglecting I/rdp introduces an e~r, especially for
3.161 (10). -1zyq2z T
+ large-diameter perforations. This results in a higher
hz. cnkmlated pressure dzop than the actuzf, but the. error is
offset partizlly because turbulent flow afso occurs out-
side the compacted zone in a region of somewhat higher
permeability.

JANUARY .1983 37

.-
 TABLE A-I–PREDICTED PRESSURE DROPS–WELLBORE MODEL VS.

PERFORATION MODEL (psia)

Pressure Drop

Reservoir ‘i?! ‘“$:?’ Tots,

~— o 1 29

kd =2o md 28 29 11 68

ko=5 md 28 128 55 209

Perforated wellbore

Damaged perforations

(kd = 50 md, k~p = 5 md) 28 143 1,073 1,246

Ideal peiiorations, damaged

wellbore (kd = 50 md) 2s 17 64 109

[deal completion

(k@ = k. =kn = 200 md) 28 2 12 42

The permeability of the compacted zone around the around each perforation, with any turbulent losses in the
perforation ii usually much lower than the permeability radial wellbore away from the perforations ignored. The
around the wellbore because of the compaction caused data in Table B-1 me used for these calculations.
by the perforating process. 3,5 This penneabidity, k~p, in
Well A was found to be 5 to 6 md, only 2.5 to 3 % of the
Lmninar Flow Skin
formation permeability. The extra pressure drop caused
Perforation Geometiy.
by tubulent flow in Well A at 8,080 Mscf/D (231 382
std m3/d) is calculated to be 1,073 psi (7398 kpa) with
Eqs. A-3 and A-5 (neglecting the factor I/rJr). SP = 0.45 (see Ref. 7).
Table A-1 compares the extra pressure drop caused by
turbulent flow through the rock around the wellbo~ as
calculated with Eqs. A-1 through A-5. It is obvious that
both the limited inflow area of perforations and the Io$$ Wellbore Damage From Drilling.
permeability of the damaged, compacted zone around
the perfomtion increase greatly the pressure drop from
non-Dare y (turbulent) gas flow.

APPENDIX B

Example Pressure Drop Calculations 200 1.375

—
—
for a Perforated Well () ~–1 ln—
0.375
The following is a calculated example to show what can
be expected from well-perforating condition. The tur-
bulent pressure drop is calculated only for the zone = 3.9.

TABLE B-1 —DATA FROM WELL A USED FOR EXAMPLE TABLE B-2—EXAMPLE WELL WITH MUD-

PRESSURE DROP CALCULATIONS” DAMAGED PERFORATIONS–BREAKDOWN

OF FLOWING PRESSURE DROPS

Gas flow rate, q, Mscf/O 8,080

Formation temperature, T, ‘F 245 Approximate

Gas deviation factor, z 1.415 Ap 2 Pressure Drop

viscosity +, Cp 0.035 FIOW Path (%) (psi)

Reservoir permeability, k~, md 200

resewoir 2.41 30
Net pay, h, ft 26
Iaminar skin 11.46 143
Well drainage radius in reservoir, r., ft 1,320
turbulent skin 86,13 1,073
Wellbore radius, rw, in. 4.5
100 1,246
Average reservoir pressure, Pe, psia 10,177

Permeability of damaged zone around wellbore,

0.25 k,= 50
kd, md”
Permeability of damaged, compacted zone

around perforation in rock, k,jp, md 0.7 kd=5

Shots/ft 2

Phasinc g, degrees 180

PerfOri ition penetration into formation, Lo. f! 0,75

Perforation diameter, ii. 0.38

0.5

. [“ IMs exmde, gas WJwks ace evaluated at the ‘esefvdr Pressure,

..pe = ?0,,77 psi..

rd -1,375 It, and rw =0.375 H.

3s JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

Perforation Compacted, Damaged Zone.

“ H“’’3+’+D’I
‘4” = (+)(:”:)’”(;) _ (1 ,424) (0.035)(1.415)(755)(8,080)
—

—
- -(?-%)4%3 /
1,320
. ln(0.472)—
= 30.95. [ 0.375

Combined L.amirmr Skin, s.

+35.3+(0.03285)(8,080)
1
s = sp +s’f+s~p

= 77,256 (7.42+35.3+265.4)
= 0.45+3.9+30.95

= 77,256 (308.1)
= 35.3

— 2.38(10)7.
Turbulence Parameter, D

PM = 8,931 psia (61 577 kPa).

13 = 2.6(10) 10k-i2
Ap = ~R–pti=l,246 psi (8591 !&a)
= 2.6(10)10(5)-12

Table B-2 summarizes the pressure dmp through the

= 3.77(10)9.
reservoir and the @amsged zones. Tt@dent flow
pressure dmp though the compacted damaged zone
around the perforation is by far the most significant.

~= ’’’o)oi-(+)(?)?) S1 Metric Conversion Factors

3.77(10)9(0.635)

1
= 2.22(10)-15 bbl X 1.589873 E–01 = m3
[ (52)2(0.75)2(0.0158) Cp x 1.0* E–03 = Pas
ft X 3J348* E–01 = m
=.
[-1 “F
in. x
(“F–32)/L8
2.54* E+OO = cm
c

psi x 6.894757 E+OO = kpa

= 0.03285: scf X 2.86364 E-02 = std m3

‘Convemion fatior k exam

m
Calculated Pressure Drop
Original nm.uscrip! re.eivti in SOcieW 0+ Petdeu!m E.@sws office Jan, 5, M8:.

~z = pR2_p@2 – y’$y PaPer ,CC,oted 10, P“bllc,tio” Aug. 12, ~ 982. R,”k-3d m“”sc,@ r~e:ved Nov. 97,

1982. PaPec (SPE 10S.49) first Presented d ‘the 19S2 SPE Fmma!im Danwe Control

Sr?VO$;um held:. Lafwet!e, LA March 2*25.

JANUARY 1983 39
 TABLE IV

SUMMARY OF PERFORATION CONDITION

EXAMPLE WELLS

Perforating Fluid
Well Kc) - md K~p/K Kdp/K Kd/KO (Pressure, psi)

A 200 .03 Weighted Mud (+500)

B 8.6 1 Brine (-500)

c 318 .09-.165 Brine (+200)

D 70 .20 .4 .5 Brine (-800)

E 70 .5 1.0 .5 Brine (-2085)

TABLE V

G~ID~LINEs FOR THE EFFECT OF

PERFOMTING CONDITIONS ON PERFORATION QUALITY

,. . . .. . . . .. . . . .

Perforating Conditions Perforation Parameters

Fluid Pressure CFE kC/k

High solids , mud in hole + Ap .3 .01 - .03

Low solids, mud in hole + Ap .4 .02 - .04

Unfiltered salt water + Ap .5 .04- .06

Filtered salt water + fJp .7 .08 - .16

Filtered salt water - Ap .8 .15 - .25

Clean, .nondamaging fluid, .-Ap .9 .30- .50

best techniques available

Clean, nondaniaging,ideal - Ap” 1*O “1;C(3-1.C)CI ---

perforator

.—
,,... :.
..

,,- .
. ..
. . .. -:-— .. ....... . .: ’..>.
:.-:. ,.-::.—..--. . -.
,.—
..—. — .— . . .. .. .
 TABLE A-1

Predicted Pressure Drops

Wellbore Model versus Perforation Model

Pressure Drop
Laminar Turbulent
Model Reservoir Skin Skin Total

Ideal, Undamaged Wellbore 28 0 1 29

Damaged Openhole Wellbore

= 20 md. 28 29 11 68
‘d
kd = 5 md. 28 126 55 209

Perforated Wellbore

Damaged Perfs 28 143 1073

( kd =50 md.,k = 5md.)
dp .
Ideal Perfs,Damaged
Wellbore (kd=50 red.) 28 17 64 109

Ideal Completion 28 2 12 42
(kdp = kd = k. = 200 red.)

. .

TABLE B-1

Example Well with Mud-damaged Perforations

Breakdown of Flowing Pressure Drops

Percent of
Flow Path AP2 Approx. Pressure Drop, Psi

Reservoir 2.41 30

Laminar Skin 11.46 143

.1073. . . .

Turbulent Skin 86:i3’- “’

100. 1246

.—
,.
..
. .7
.-. L,, . . . . .. . . .— ...-,-. -: . .._
,. . .. .— . -!37- ---:----- ---- --
 ,,,
!,, I :,! t 1, .:,
1, ~!

.,
,,
,.
1
,., ,,
,.
1’ ,’
“,

,’
,,

,: ,,
,,.
,, ,:
J, .— —-
,.

,,.
,.
,
;. —,
I
l“::
,,

;,;
?,, !$,
,,,, ,

1
,,,

(-n
,’,

,’1

)“
.,
I

. I NIN

-1
-cJ

3’
g
-. I

,s
,,
1

z’
0
,,

r
.,

,,~”!
,,
:,1
,, t
.[
,,
:,,’
;, I
:,,
,,
,,{

,., .1
.,

:1
‘1,
,,
,,,
~: ,’. 1,
,,
!.’ ‘,

,, ‘ “
,,
I 1.