.

SPE

29274

lsoobtvofPotmbumEndn-

Optimal
Design
of Perforating
Completion
for Gas Well
Inst.
Yula Tang, Yincjde Pan, Yongqing Wangt Southwest. China Petrol.
*SPE Member
Cc@ght 1SS5, SoobtYd Patrolwm Enginaara,Ino.
Thiapaparwaspraparad for~ntatlonattha

SPEA@aPdoOil

6QfsConfa~hM

in KudaLumPur.Mam@a, ~~~hl~

ABSTRACT
_f~,~pLuuub
nrn A1le+i.L_LvA_LJ
,;i ,-l>st-a~t~ri~tic?
u.. up - ., -----,---+.,7

~f

perforated gas well is investigated

real
for the first time under
drilling
considering
conditions
damage, perforation compacted zone
and anisotropy in this paper. A nonlinear finite element model for nonperforated
gas
Darcy
flow
in
reservoir is built to consider the
twelve
factors
on
effects
of
ratio
(PR)
of
productivity
perforated gas well. The nomography
for two cases are presented in this
paper.
Compared with previous works, the
following results are found: (I) The
and
damage
effects
of drilling
perforation diameter on PR of gas
well are more remarkable than that
in oil well. (II) Any perforation
phase may be the best or the worst
as to perforating gas well, which
depends Qn anisotropy: drawdown and
that whether or not perforations are
beyond drilling damage zone. (III)
The increase in perforation length
hardly improve PR of gas well when
been
beyond
have
perforations
drilling damage zone.
The new method
is suggested to
predict or determine the turbulent
References and illustrations at end

flow co-efficient D, totz~l skin S,

pseudo skin Sti, and irldividual:~kill
!iactors (Sp, Sd, Sdp) in perforated
gas well=
The minimum underbalance required to
obtain a zerQ perforating skin is
discussed as well. Some drawbacks of
the equation proposed by Tariq (SPE
and a new
20636) are analyzed
number
criterion
is
Reynolds
established. The critical Reynolds
is
number for clean perforation
dependent on formation permeability.
the
this
research,
Based
on
for
program
the
and
principle
perforating
design
of
optional
are
well
gas
completion
in
These new concepts,
highlighted.
results and conclusions would be of
well
gas
both
importance
to
gas
reservoir
and
perforating
engineering.
INTRODUCTION
used
has
been
Perforation
Gun
successfully and widely for more
than 60 years for generating a
controlled flow channel between the
The
wellbore.
and
reservoir
perforations
flow
in
restricted
can
by jet penetrators
created
affect
productivity
in
adversely
Proper
natural well completions.
perforating design and operating can
make the formation damage to the
least, and obtain idea productivity.

203

Optimal Design of Perforating Completion ior Gas Well

flow
can be
reduced
Otherwise,
following
possible
by
caused
plugging
of
including
factors,
perforations with rock or charge
debris, mechanical damage to the
duo to high
shock
rock matrix
pressure, chemical damage to the
formation with dirty perforating
fluids and the extra pressure drop
because of flow convergence and
turbulent effect. For these reasons,
optimal perforating design is very
process
of
the
important
in
an
exploration
reservoir
exploitation.
Over the years, people have been
productivity
the
studying
perforated
performance
of
studies
have been
completion. Many
the
determine
to
conducted
perforated
of
characteristics
completion in oil welll-6. Owing to
the complexity of non-Darcy effect
reservoirs,
gas
perforated
in
for
perforated
researches
completion in gas reservoirs are
relatively few.

SJ?li 29214

Unlike the previous works cited, the

present study considers in greater
detail the effects of many factors
More
on
productivity
ratio.
practicable nomography are given for
analysis and prediction of gas well
perforating design. Until now, the
accepted
that
has
industry
underbalanced
perforating is the
best way
to complete a welll,
Although faced the challenges of
ov e rb a 1 a n c e
ex t r em e
perforating 11.Underbalance pressure
should
reach
a
differentials
threshold to obtain clean and nondamage perforations. The threshold
the
minimum
is
referred
to
used
The
widely
underbalance.
the
minimum
for
guideline
underbalance is kings12 correlation
obtained from field data. King:s
field statistics and experimental
results for other studiesi3-lsshown
that the minimum underbalance is
relates to formation permeability.

Tariq16 first applies finite element

model to study the required level of
underbalance. Combining kings field
data and the non-Darcy effects in
presented
an
analytical
McLeod7
the vicinity of perforations at
equation to calculate the extra
&<-a
derived
a
LALIIGS, Ta~iq
ea~ly
pressure drop by turbuient fiow
critical Reynolds number, Ret, for
through rock around wellbore. His
clean perforation in gas reservoir.
equation has been widely used in the
gave an analytical
Tariq
Then,
analysis of perforated gas well.
equation to determine the minimum
Although McLeods equation is quite
simple and convenient, the accuracy undexbalance, However, this study
are
great
there
that
shOWS
is open to doubt.
difference between
Tariqs
equation
..
-mA46;a#l
and hls resultant curves. nn IItuu*~.==
Later, Tariq* considered nonlinear
to get a
method
is introduced
flow
in
perforated
effect
of
of
correlation
reasonable
formation with finite element method
underbalance.
for the first time. But Tariq did
not give out applicable nomography.
Nodal analysis17 or well performance
analysis is a useful method for
The first systematic analysis of
design.
Inflow
perforating
perfo~ated gas well was made by
performafice relationship is the key
Icharag. He studied performance of
point. This paper presents a method
perforated gas well and published
to calculate various skin factors
his nomograph. Ichara found there
and turbulent coefficient. Thus, the
are many differences between gas and
IPR of perforated gas well can be
oil well in perforated completion.
accurately predicted.
Unfortunatelyr
Ichara
did
not
consider drilling and perforating
The optimal design of gas well
damage that exist in real perforated
perforating is a complicated system
gas well.
engineering. The principal and

204

SPE 29274

Yula Tang, Yingde Pan, Yongqing Wan?

optimal
for
program
this
recommended
in
software
commercial
developed.
TEE PARTIAL DI~IAL

are
Txx , Tyy,
Tzz,
Where
the
transmission coefficient respectly
direction.
and
z
along
x,
y
coefficient
can
be
Transmission
the
following
represented
by
expression

design
is
paper.
An
has
been
UATION

OF

T=Kp/(u+Kp6v) ...................(5)

velocity
of gas
filtration
The
through porous media in the near
wellbore is so high that it can not
obey Darcys law. The Forchheimerie
equation is used to illustrate nonDarcy flow or nonlinear effects;

Txx,Tyy and Tzz are the function of

pressure because of p and v being
the function of pressure. Thus,
partial differential equation (3) is
non-linear equation.
conditions
The boundary
are as
follows

.$lf=Jf+ppva. . . . . . . . . . ...*.*

PIS1=+(X,Y,

Z) . . . . . . . . . . . . ...0...(6)

(1)

E#P/~n21Sz=0.....................(7)
PIS3+ sp!s3 -.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
where
01n~+ =01n,- ....................(9)
p=pressure(Pa) ,
l=length(m)r
where
k=permeability (m2),
SI =perforation inner surface and
=density(kg/m3) ,
the
outer boundary of cylindrical
=velocity
coefficient
(m-l),and
B
formation,
u=viscosity(Pa.s)
*(X6
y;
presslJr~
~~~ lJ~~Q~~~y f~~~Q~F pi w~~ ~~~~tecj
z)=Knowr!
function(pW or p= ),
with permeability and expressed by
S2=no-flow curved surface (cement
Firoozabadi and Katzlg equation
some
flc?w-dividing
sheath
and
#=7.3844x10-8/F-201.
...........(2)
surface) ,
Sa=permeability
interrupted
surface (outer boundary of drilling
Gas density, p, can be written as
or perforating damaged zone), and
n=outer normal direction of curved
p=28.97 y9p/(8314T~Z).........(3)
surface cited above
where
y~=gas specific gravity,
For idea Darcy flow in perforated
z=gas deviation factor, and
gas well, the partial differential
Tt=formation temperature(K)
equation can be written as f~llows
The partial differential equation
steady-state,
for
3-dimensional,
single-phase gas flow in porous
media can be derived as*

. . . . .

(lo)

Sl=*(x,y,z) ..................(11)
. . . . ...*

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*

. .

(4)

~P/~n2S2=0 .....................(12)
3

205

.........(13)

SPE 29274

Optimal Design of Perforating Completion for Gas Well

method was used to solve equ. (16)

to obtain function p and p. The
initial pressure distribution was
got .

vnx-=vnx+ ..................... (14)

where
~e,~ (x,y,z)=Known function (PW2 or
along
Kx=Ky=Kh=Permeability
I..-Z-L-1A:--..t:nn
norlz0n~c4~ ULLI=bLLull
Kz=Kv=Permeability along vertical
direction
NON-LINEAR FINITE ~

initial
the
(~)
A.ccQEding to
pressure, transmission coefficients
of each element were calculated with
a special subroutine program.

MODEII

(c) Based on the known transmission

approximate
the
coefficients,
The equivalent calculus equation of
pressure distribution of non-Darcy
variations for equ. (4) and eqs.
flow was obtained. Also the flow
(6)-(9) is th~t~.}~ding pressure
rate and productivity ratio: PR~ of
the
) nil.
s..--+:-.. D
l.uIILLAwll,
following e~Jat~cX ;;n L;v!atisfi;;perforated gas well were figured
out .
for any V@JO
[d)

Re~eat

f0i10b7iig

w=$%+~%g+=$%
I
pR(tI)_pR(n-l)

dxdydz==o
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)

The equivalent Calculus equation of

variations for eqs. (10)-(14) is
that: finding a function P*,P*=P2,
p*ec2(x)nv4 , the following equation
can be met for any VeVo

Step b and c until

]ndit~on was satisfied
/PR(n)<c............ (17)

where
times
n=the
calculation

of

iterative

THE PRODUCTIVITY CEARAC~STIcS

OF

!l!h
e flow ett iciency of perforated
with
&xpressed
may
be
well
productivity ratio, PR. Productivity
ratio wad defined as follows in this
study
PR=Qp/Qi........................(18)

dzdydz=o
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(16)

The equivalent calculus equation of

variations can be solved with finite
element method6- The difficulty here
transmission
that
in
iies
are the
Txx,Tyy,Tzz
coefficients,
function of pressure. They can not
be determined before knowing the
Non-linear
pressure distribution.
finite element modal was used to
solve this problem. Transmission
by
determined
were
coefficients
iterative method. The step were as
follows.

where
Qp =flow rate of perforated gas
well, and
Q1 =flow rate of idea open hole
with non-Darcy flow
can be expressed by the wellQ1
known equations

[Ln(O.472zJzW) +DQ,]
............................... (19)
D=2.191x10-15(~K,y~/h ) (l/rw-l/re)
(7n)
...........................eee.,--,

(a) Firstly, suppose that flow obeys

Darcys law. Linear finite element
206

Yula Tang, Yingde Pan, Yongqing Wang

SPE 29274

~=1.729x107/K-20
............... (21)
where
,
P, = reservoir pressure (?42a)
PWf = flowing BHP (MPa),
u = viscosity (mPa.s),
= gas deviation factor,
;. = formation temperature(K),
k. = gas reservoir permeability
(um2),
h = net pay (m)
Qi = gas flow rate of idea openhole (std m3/d)
r~ = well drainage radius in
reservoir (m),
rW = wellbore radius ( half of bit
diameter ) (m),
D = inertial or turbulent flow
fa~t~r
velocity coefficient ( m-),
and
y~ = gas gravity
(ti/m3\
1-1...

If

NOMOGRAPHERS OF PRODUCTIVITY RATIO

The effects of twelve factors on
productivity ratio were considered
in +h;~
GA.w study, These factors include
length,
LD
shot
perforation
density, Den, perforation d{ameter,
D~, phasing angle, PHA, thickness of
crushed zone, CZH, the ratio of
zone
permeability
over
crushed
permeability,
kc/kr,
reservoir
thickness of drilling damaged zone,
DH , the ratio of drilling damage
zone permeability over reservoir
permeability, kJke, wellbore radius,
rW, anisotropy, kV/k~, drawdown,Ap,
and reservoir permeability, k=.
two
cases:
for
Nomography
of
productivity ratio for two cases are
presented in this paper. Fig.1 is
the nomography used in the condition
~~~~ Lp<DHi and Fig,2 used in the
condition that LP2DH. There are two
correlated items, i.e., PHA-AP, and
p~~. Kv/KHo
PHA-AP=-(0.0142)[(PHA-90) /(30) 1 [(AP(Eig.l)
...........(zz)
16)/(5.74)]
PHA-K#Kh=(o.0159) [(PHA-90)/(30)l
(Fig.1)
[(&/KH-O= 505)/(0.203)1
................................(23)

PHA-KJKH=(o.0211) [(PHA-90)/(30)l
(Fig.2)
[(Kv/K~-O.505)/(0.203)1
...............................(24)
TEB RELATIVE
FXTORS

IMPORTANCE

ORDER

OF

Although there are twelve factors

which effect productivity ratio, the
relative degree of factors effects
on productivity ratio are not same
each other. some are quite obvious,
some are slight.
When perforations do not penetrate
through drilling damaged zone, the
of
importance
order
relative
variables
(from the most to the
least) is that: l.K~/K,,2.Lm, 3.DEN,
4.DP , 5.Kc/K., 6.rW, 7.KJ/K~, 8.PHA,
9. AP, 10.DH, 11.CZH and 12.Kr
damage
zone is penetrated
When
the
perforations,
through
by
of
order
importance
relative
variables
is that: 1.DEN, 2.DP,
3.KJKr9,KjKKJK~,
5.&, 6.AP, 7.LP,
8.K=, . . , , 10.PHA, 11.CZH and
12.DH.
The correlation of phasing with
drawdown and anisotropy makes the
effect of phasing be much greater
than above order.
EEEECTSOF PERPORATION
SHOT DENSITY

LENGTH

AND

Eig.3shows that productivity ratio

can be SiCjiiifiCt311t~~ increased by
increasing perforation length when
LP<DH . once perforations penetrate
through damaged zone productivity
dramatically.
improved
ratio
is
However, after damaged zone has
already been penetrated
through,
productivity ratio almost does not
with
the
increase
of
increase
perforation length,
shot density is low.
a.=mnfii
=Q&-w&uAAy

=1

117

whan
. ..s..

Nevertheless, in any circumstances

density
affect
shot
does
productivity
ratio significantly,
especially when perforation depth is
damage
depth.
than
greater
productivity ratio can increase

207

obviously with the increase of shot

1
.Lmt
.4firle4 +-*T ?-nar-hne
2---: L.. ....t.
UGALU.L
Ly
A-u-AAtiG?LAWG
UJILAJ.
ucn=JALy
40 shots/m.
EFFECT OF ~RATION
PRODWTIVITY RATIO

DIAME~

ON

Fig.4 illustrates the effect of

perforation diameter. It is evident
that
at
any
plot
this
from
conditions does perforation diameter
significantly control productivity
ratio, especially when damaged zone
through.
This
is
is penetrated
point
from
different
another
perforated oil well. In oil well, it
is well known that the effect of
perforation diameter is slight.
-INED

EFFECT
O!I!HER EWTORS

OF

PEAS=

WITE

that
the
Previous work$-s shows
optimal phasing is 90 or 60 for
oil well. This study shows that
depends
phasing
optimal
t::
and
drawdown
anistropy,
whether
or
not
that
condition
zone can be penetrated
damaged
through. Table 1 is the order of
phase from the best to the lease for
From the
condition.
some given
-table, we can draw the cwnciusion
that any phasing may be the better
or the worse, which depends on
conditions. This phenomenon differs
from that of oil well.
B~
RATIO

SPE 29274

Optimal Design of Perforating Completion for Gas Well

OF ANISTROPY ON PRODUCTIVITY

snow
t+Eit
~ig.5
and
Fig.6
---productivity ratio decreases with
decreases. The effect of
&/K,
anistropy is most severe at phasing
180 (Fig.5) and lease severe at
phasing 00 . This result is easy to
understand. When phasing is O* , the
controlled formation thickness by a
perforation, hP , is smallest.
effect
of
the
time,
this
At
ratio
productivity
anistropy
on
reduce to the least.

Fig.7 is a plot of productivity

ratio vorqll~
nerfmrat~nn
~~~g~h
~Q~
r-----------.-&w-different level of K~/K,. It is seen
damage
affect
drilling
that
ratio
obviousiy.
productivity
Comparing with oil well, the effect
damage
cm
PR
in
of
drilling
perforated gas well is more severe
than that in oil well.
B~

OF ~ILITY

D--

Formation permeability and drawdown

do not infiuence productivity ratio
when flow obeys Darcys law, for the
flow rates of both perforated well
and idea open-hole well being the
function
of
Kc and AP.
linear
both
flow
rates
of
However,
perforated and open-hole well are
nonlinear function of K@ and AP when
flow obeys non-Darcy law.
Fig.8 and Fig. 9 show that the
productivity ratio of perforated gas
well decreases with the increase of
This
permeability
and
drawdown.
~urm~en~
indicate
that
--~---~
resuit
effect is more severe in perforated
gas well than that in idea open-hole
gas well. Icharag reached the same
study
However,
this
conclusion.
-s pwLIL1c$aJJAJ.ALy
..A1.w..-la!.!
14+.,
E?ho-w-si
that
effect
UL
Is
not so obvious as discussed by
Ichara. The cause of this difference
may be lie in that productivity
ratio defined by Ichara is based on
the Darcy flow of idea open-hole
well.

gas
with
well
open-hole
For
formation damage, flow rate often
by
following
expressed
been
equation,
~: -~=

(1.291) (10+) ~Z~&

k$

[M (O.472=JrV) +S+DQL]
MmEcT

0?

PRmucTxvITY

DRILLING
RATIO

DAMl@B

ON
..*...,

208

.* . . ...*

. . . . . ..**

. . . .

..\4a}

19KI

SPE 29274

Yula Tangr Yingde Pan, Yongqing Wang

skin factor
Where, s is referred
which describe the extra drawdown
DQi
due to formation dalIl~Y~Jafid
--describe the extra drawdown due to
turbulent flow effect. Turbulent
flow factor of open-hole, D, is
expressed by equ. (20).
Turbulent flow factor of perforated
gas well is expressed as D in this
study. D should not be confused
with D. Mcteod7 used an approximate
equation to computer D. In fact,
however, it is impossible to express
equation
an analytical
D with
But
Das
well
as
s can
accurately.
by
determined
accurately
be
following approach.

described as follows.
(aj Set two different drawdowns~ API
and AP2. Computer the flow rates, Qil
and Qi2 of open-hole well at the two
drawdowns. Predict the productivity
ratios PR1 and PR2 at the two
drawdown with Fig.1 or Fig.2.
(b) Computer the flow rates QPI and
Q,z, of perforated gas well at Apl
and AP2
(30)

QPl=Qil.pal******

. . . . . . .

QP2=Qil

.......(31)

*pro*.....**.*.*

(C)
computer the pseudo skins, S1
and S2, at Apl and Ap2

The flow rate, QP, of perforated gas

well can be written as following
form

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

(32)

[Ln (O. 472r@/rJ

+S+DQp]
............................(26)

where
s = total skin of perforated gas
well
Total skin can be disintegrated
as follows

~0.472K
rw
s!=

PRZ

eWI=

_m0.472re
rw

(33)

S=SP+S~P+S~
.....................(27)

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

where
sp
= skin for flow converging
into perforations,
sdp = Skin for perforating damage,
sd = Skin for drilling damage,

(d) determine total skin, S, and

turbulent fiow factor, D by solving
follow equations:
SI=S+D

QPI..................(34)

S2=S+D

QP2..................(35)

Psedo skin factor, S, is defined as

Si

=S+D:QP

.................(28)

Thus: productivity
ratio
expressed as follows

can

be

PR=QP/Qi=[Ln(0.472re/rW)
+DQi]/
[Ln(0.472re/rW)+S+DQP]........ (29)
The method of predicting S and D is

The individual skin factors, SP, Sdp

and Sd, can be obtained by following
way.
(a) Suppose CZH=O, DH=O, Kc/Kr=l and
K~/K,=l. According to the similar
recommended
above,
method
perforating skin, SP, can be

Optimal Design of Perforating Completion for Gas Well

determined.

~:_A=

(22.8)

(b) suppose DH=O and K./Kr=l ( no

The corresponding
drilling damage).
skin is SP+~P(S~=O)
sP+dp =Sd+Sdp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....(36)
s~HP can also be figure out by the
same approach as discussed above.
(c) obtain perforating and drilling
damage skins, S~P and Sd, with follow
equation
s dp

Sedp -

sp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (37)

Sd = s-sp - sdp.

(38)

(104)

SPE 29274
~2Z~##,

geyg
[-,/z,+&x2 (l/rI-l/r,)
]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (39)
Where
Pr-- reservoir pressure (psi),
Pti -- wellbore pressure(psi),
u -- viscosity,
Kc--permeability of crushed zone
(red)
,
z -- gas deviation factor,
~ -- gas gravity,
f -- formation temperature (R),
rz --radius of crushed zone (in.),
r~ -- radius of perforation (in.),
critical Reynolds number of
gas reservoir for clean
perforating.
Ret--

ANALYSIS

AND

DE~NATION

OF

Underbalanced
perforating
is
perforating which is done when the
reservoir pressure, P,, is higher
than the downhole wellbore pressure,
P
Underbalance pressure is defined
as a critical value or shreshold
above which the clean perforating
can be achieved. King, Anderson, and
Bingham12 reported a
correlation
between formation permeability and
the
minimum
underbalance
in
sandstone reservoirs. Tariqls first
built a finite element model to
calculate the minimum underbalance.16
Vf

He concluded that the required level

of underbalance for cleanup is one
that
will
introduce
non-Darcy
effects
in
the
vicinity
of
nnr~nva+inna
p.=-kw-ub.u..d

at

13>rll?
GcALLy

+;mna
LLLL1==GI.

Trim
A aLLy

Tariq got a conclusion that &==O.l

seems to separate the sufficient and
the insufficient underbalance points
quite well. This resulted from his
finite
element
model
and
the
comparation with Kings field data.
Kings field data were expressed as
follows by Tariq
Apmin=3000/KrO-4

where
minimum underbalance (psi)
Ap~i~=
Kr=reservoir permeability (red)
Tariq pointed that good agreement
was present between equ. (39) and
equ. (40). But we can not obtain
this result. Using Tariqs given
parameters
(Z=l.o,
=0.03
Cp,
y,=O.6, &==O.l, R,=O.?in, rl=0.2in)
m~v.w..-.mm-m
~rid=--ll=<nn---- ,,r.Lmfi..vm
(Pr=2900psi (20MPa), T==672R (373K),
Kc/K, =0.2), the minimum underbalance
can
be
expressed
with
Tariqs
equation
uQ.7u11LAAJy

uses Kings field data in an attempt

to obtain
a critical
Reynolds
number.
Finally,
he
gave
an
analytical formulation to estimate
underbalance.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(40)

=Ulll=

Uilr.lluwAl

paLalll=L=La

Apfin=P~-(Pr2-2.4986x106/KrO-8)
0.5...
(41)
For gas well perforating, Tariqs
equation
for
the
minimum
underbalance is

210

Tab.2 shows the comparation between

Tariqs equation (equ.41) and Kings
equation
(equ.40).
Obviously,
equ. (41)
can
mot
agree
with
equ. (40). There are two reasons for

SPE 29274

c)ne
is
that
the
error .
tklis
coefficient of equ. (39) should be
2.23x106 . If S1 unit is used, the
following equation can be derived.

75.09p2zT#&
Pia-Ra=

Yula Tang, Yingde Pan, Yongqing Wang

k:eyg

ml:

=[(Pr
Kr0.4)-(P,2Kr0
~7~tc!l.25+2.49&cj j0.3j/KO-4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.8-

(44)

Equ (44) should equals equ. (43) if

the critical reyholds number. Ret,
is correct. So the follow equation
should be met

+R+z
1

(l/rI-l/r,)]
............................... (42)

Ko.4pr_

[(p

2Kr0-8)
)-(271xl.25Rec)I
(271x2.49F& )10-S=20.685......... (45)

Therefore, a new form of Reynolds

number yields:

Where
p= (MPa)
u = (mPa.s)
T= = (K)
1=
(
Kc = (10-3um2)

571)05-Qe251e
,,(46)
Ret=(c.061PrKr.4-o.
,
In order to guarantee_ ~%4greater
than 0.1, the item of P=Kr--should
be greater than 15, i.e.

m)

Kings equation can be rewritten for

S1 unit

PJ&0.42?15
........................(47)

APti~=20.684/KO-4
.................(43)
The second cause and also the main
cause for this error is that the
critical Reynolds number is too
small and critical Reynolds number
keep constant. Thus, the right item
of equ. (42) or (39) is so small that
the minimum underbalance can not be
believable.
Although Tariqs critical Reynolds
number have some problem, the method
proposed by Tariq is still useful.
minimum
The
key to determining
underbalance
is to find out a
expression
of
critical
Reynolds number.
t-nrr~~~
w-.

The date above was still used to

obtain Ret, i.e.,u=O.03 mPa.s, z=l,
Kc/Kr=o.2,
T~=373k,
Yg=
o6f
Because
rz=l.78cm,
rl=0.51cm
.
and
reservoir
pressure,
P,,
affect
K rt
permeability,
underbalance greatly, it is better
to take them as variables. Thus, the
result from matching for kings
can be used
correctly.
formula
the
set
above,
According
data
minimum underbalance can be written
as follows
211

If PrKr0.4is less than 15, it shows

that the reservoir pressure is not
enough to clean perforating. That
means the minimum underbalance can
not be reached.
If computed P@ value is less that
that
illustrates
zero,
it also
formation can not provide enough
energy to clean perforations.
The proper underbalance in the two
cases above should be equal to
reservoir pressure, P~. Of course,
should the
in no circumstances
maximum underbalance be reached20 in
case that formation sand produced.
Tab. 4
presents
the
Tab. 3
and
comparation between new method and
kings result. It is seen that using
the new Reynolds number can obtain
an accurate underbalance. Minimum
underbalance
is the function of
reservoir pressure,
permeability,
and
gravity,
gas
viscosity
perforation radius and crushed zone
radius.
Further study should be done to get
better method.

10

Optimal Design of Perforating Completion for Gas Well

-..%- ---

----

---

----

. . . --

----

... .

SPE 29274

~cco~alng
on the casing strengthz~-za.
-----J
to the theoretical and experimental
Zhong
etc.23. The
research
of
K for the
coefficient
strength
perforated casing should greater
than 0,95. The following formula may
be used to determine K.

THE PRINLIPAL ANJJ l?KUtiKAM WI!UP1lMAL

DESIGN FOR GAS WELL PERFORATION

The purpose of perforating in gas

well is to obtain open~ clean holes
and high productivity. As previously
perforating parameters
mentioned,
have
level
underbalance
and
the
on
effects
significant
weii.
The
gas
productivity
of
reach
principle
is
to
general
maximum productivity with minimum
cost.

+=1+[

2dgo 1 [1
(360) (1000) -2c?p % Pm
(P)

(DEN)

-- . . .
m.
10ss
7- of casing ~l~Ch~fi~C~i
GLUS?l
lne
resistance and the occur of sand
production are the limit condition.

Generai guidelines for optimizing

perforating parameters in gas well
are summarized as follows.
(a) choose those shaped charges that

LL--..-L
d~iiii~~
LIILuugIl
penetrate
The
radius
of
damaged
damaged zone.
zone may be predicted or estimated
by means of explanation of DST test
or Log test
can

w-n
ere
PHA=Phasing, if PHA=O , then using
360,
DEN=(shots/m) ,
DP = perforation diameter (mm),
-..
t- ,- ~~ar,e~er of ..4-
D=
UULGJ.
~aa~uy

(mm),

thickness of casing well (in)

* = 3.14159
8

The limited condition

design is K>O.95

(b) among shaped charges capable of

shotting beyond damaged zone, select
those charges that
can create holes of large diameter.
depth
of
this
case,
the
In
perforation
is not an important
factor.

of

optimal

Design of perforating underbalance

including determining
minimum and
Minimum
underbalance.
maximum
been
discussed
has
underbalance
underbalance
and
above.
Maximum
underbalance
has
recommended
summarised by Crayford20.

(c) if the radius of damaged zone is

too long to be penetrated through,
choose deep penetrating charges as
possible.
Certainly,
far
as
--fiOt
be
pelfOr~tiO~ dia~l~t~r ShCUid
too small.

The program of optimal perforating

design in gas well is summarized as
c-l1----LuLJ.uwa

(a) collect the relative data of

rock, fluid and formation damage.
Investigate the production history
of neighboring wells.

shot
density
(d)
use
higher
regardless of the depth of damaged
and
economics
zone. of course,
casing
should
be
strength
of
weighted.

(b) collect the data of charges and

guns in the market, including core
flow efficiency, CFF, of charges and
the test date of perforating damage.

(e) 900 or 60 or 1800 phasing are

not necessarily the best. Phasing
by
determined
angle
should
be
nomography.

data
of
the
(c) According
to
penetration depth and diameter Gf
sandstone
target,
charges
in
calibrate them to downhole and

have
be
done
Many
researches
concerning the effect of perforation
212

SPE 29274

Yula Tang, Yingde Fan, Yongqing Wanq

N-IQ main
for~atii~il condition.
affect th~ per fo~rnance
+=./.---.!
.include forl[lation
of penetration
porosity24, ciearoii of pexfoxatingr
staying time and temperature in the
underbalance,
tca:jing
downhole,
grade, storage time and conditions.
Fart<-ir=

that

(d) computer the productivity ratios

of various possible schemes. In the
same time, cornputel the st~ength
coefficient of cdsing with different
to
use modal
schemes.
analysis
.ln fact.or
.
obtain gas flow ratel :<
)
Choose the best pl~n.
(e) Design and evaluate perforating
fluid.
~f
p~ocedure
the
Design
(f)
engineering and evaluate eifect.ion
by well testing at-tier
perforating.

11

lies within
VJhe n perforation
ratio
~;magecl zone, productivity
w
it]-i
inclease
pe~foration
length.
Penetrating
though damaged zone can improve
ratica dramatically.
productivity
When pe~toration a~e beyond damaged
improvement
zone, no appreciable
occ~lrs by
increasing
penetrate
depth .
inpvfa.aqa
LIALA+WUU

in

phasing
Optimal
depends
on
6.
aniscltrapy, drawdown and whether or
nctt damaged zone can be penetrated
through. Any phase c~n either the
better angle OL the worse angle.
g~e, 60 01 180 are not ~e~essarily
angle.
This
best
phasing
the
phenomaIlcjndiffefs gic~~tly from the
pf>ri~rmanr::~
of oil well perforating.

7. Drawdown and permeability can

productivity
ratio
Of
affect
perforateci qas well. But t-heeffect
l-lf
pel:w?ahi1ity ~::nnt 30 obvious as
Based on t!>e r=sll!ts ~brair!~d in
~:j-i~:-,q
!;:,~~;;,:~jpi-j,~~~
>
th=
f~jlh.(lr,~
:::~:!.~~s~.:>rir
this ~ti~d~
can ue md~.e.
8. A nww method to predict total
>;ki~i
and turbulent
1..A non-li~!~ar ~nik;?l+ment model
;;kin, i.ridiVldl.i~ll
f~,~ E:r,-rrar:-rj:,::fl.
Oli !l~l;5
beer, f.iow felcto.
r Zjf p?lfOrat~d iJaS well
r; can used in the
tne eIrecT.sof was built. ::
built to ~,on~i~e~
inflow
damage
ana].ysi.s of
performance
perforati.on parameters,
parameters, drawdown, permeability,
relati~nship and in nodal analysis.
radius
on pr~ducti-fity
wellbore
ratio of perforated gas well.
9. Based on the analysis of Tariqs
equation and the match with Kings
field date, a new critical Reynolds
inciuding twelve
2. Nomographers
been
presented
factors
have
to number criterion was suggested to
predicate
productivity
ratio
of
determine the mifiim~m iinderbalance.
perforated gas well,
This method combines the advantage
of Tariq idea and Kings equation.
3. The relative importance orders of
It can be used in wide range of gas
factors which affect productivity
reservoir.
ratio were
obtained.
The order
zone
changes
when
damaged
is
10. The principle and program of
penetrated through.
optimal
design
for
gas
well
perforating were emphasized.
4. Drilling damage
degree, shot
density and perforation
diameter
X~OWI@D_TS
affect
productivity
ratio
extensively whether or not damaged
We are grateful to the management of
zone
is penetrated
though . The
Southwest China Pet.role,umInstitute
effects
of drilling
damage
and
for permission
to publish
this
perforation diameter on productivity
paper. Appreciation is also extended
ratio are much more obvious than
Miss Pu Hong and Mr.Zhanq Yiping for
that in oil well.
their assistance.
CONCLUSIONS

213

12

Optimal Design of Perforating Completion for Gas Well

RE~RENCES

SPE 29274

and
Dees
, J .M . ,
Overbalance
Handren,p.J. :Extreme
Well
Improves
Perforating
Performance, World Oil ( Jan. 1994
) 96-98
11.

of
1. Harris,M.H. : The Effect
Perforating on Well Productivity,
J. Pet. Tech. (April 1966) 518 5?8.
Productivity
of
Hong,K.C. :
2.
Perforated Completion in Formation
With or Without Damage, J. Pet.
Tech. (Aug. 1975) 1027 - 1038.
3. Klotz,J.A., Krueger,R.F. , and
Perforating
Pye,D.S. :Effect
of
Damage on Well Productivity, J.
Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1974) 1303 -1314.
4. Lock,S. : An Advanced Method for
Predicting The Productivity Ratio of
A perforated Well, J. Pet. Tech.
(Dec. 1981) 2481 - 2488
5. Todd, B.J., and Bradley D.J. (SPE
15029)
and
Pan,Y.D. :w
Tang,Y.L.
6.
Application
of Finite - Element
Method in Perforated Completion,
ACTA PETROLEI SINICA, Vol.10, No.4,
( Oct., 1989 )
7. McLeod, H.O.Jr. :The Effect of
Well
Conditions
on
Perforating
Performance, J. Pet. Tech. (Jane
1983) 31-39
8. Tariq,S.M. :Evaluation of Flow
Perforation
Characteristics
of
including Nonlinear Effects Using
Finite - Element Method, paper SPE
12781 presented at the 1984 SPE
California Regional Meeting, April
11-13
9. Ichara,M.J. :The Performance of
Perforated
Completion
in
Gas
Reservoirs,

paper
16384
SPE
presented at the 1.987SPE California
Regional
Meeting,
Ventura,
California (April 8-10)
10.Bell,W.T. :PerforatingTechniques
for Mariimizing Well Productivity,
paper SPE 10033 presented at the
1982
SPE
Pet.
International
Exhibition
and
Tech.
Symposium,
Beijing, China
214

King,G.E. , Anderson,A. , and

12.
Study
of
Field
Bingham,M. :A
Underbalance Pressure Necessary to
Using
Perforations
Clean
Obtain
Tubing Conveyed Perforating, w J.
Pet. Tech. (June 1986) 662-664
13. Halleck,P.M. and Dee, M.:The
Underbalance
Effects
of
Perforation Flow, Paper SPE 168~~
Presented at the 1987 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Tx (Sept. 27-30).
and
Regalbuto,
J.A.
14.
Differential
Riggs,R.S. :High
Pressure Radial Fiow Cha.racteristics
of Gun Perforations, paper SPE
14319 Presented at the 1985 SPE
and
Technical
Conference
Annual
NV
(Sept.
Las
vegas,
Exhibition,
1985)
Generalized
Tariq,S.M. :wNew
16.
Criteria for Determining the Level
of Underbalance for Obtaining Clean
Perforations, w paper SPE 20636
presented at the 65th SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, LA(Sep. 23-26, 1990)
and
Mach,J.M.,
Proano,E.,
17.
Brown,K.E. : A Nodal Approach for
Applying System Anaoysis to The
Flowing And Artificial Lift Gad
Well, w paper SPE 8026, Unsolicited
paper (Nov 1979),34pp.
18. Forchheimer,.: Wasserbewegung
durch Boden, Z. Ver. Deutsch. Ing.
(1901) 45,178-1788
19. Firoozabadi,A., and Katz, D.L.:
An Analysis of High - Velocity Gas
Flow Through Porous Media, J. Pet.
Tech. (Feb. 1979) 211-216
20. Crawford,H.R. : Underbaianced
Perforating Design. paper SPE
19749 presented at the 64th. SPE
Annual Technical Conference and

SPE 29274

Yula Tang, Yingde Pan, Yongqing Wang

Exhibition, San Antonio, TX (Oct. 8~~, -z--,

l~fiq)
21. King,G.E. : The Effect of Highthe
on
Perforating
Density
Resistance
of
Crush
Mechanical

paper
SPE
18843
presented
Casing,
at the SPE Productions Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ( Mar. 1314, 1989!
Casing
Crush
King,G.E. :
22.
Resistance Loss to High - Density
Perforating: Casing Tests, paper
SPE 20634 presented at the 65th SPE
and
Conference
Technical
Annual
Exhibition, New Orleans, LA ( Sep.
23-26,199G )
and
Zhao,H.W.
Zong,Y.W.,
23.
Bu,J. :Collapse Testing of Ferfoated
Casing, ACTA PETROLEI SINICA,
VO1.9, No.4, (Oct., 1988)
24. Colle,Ed. : Normalize Data for
Better Shaped Charge Predictions,
Pet. Eng. Intl. (Jan . 1991) 37-43
25. King,G.E., and, Buckley,E.D.:
Effect of Storage Conditions and
Time of Storage on ierformanceof
Perforating Charges,
Paper SPE 21656 presented at the
Symposium,
Operations
Production
Oklahoma City. Oklahoma ( April 7-9,
1991)

215

13

Tab.1

Orcier

LIP
MFm)

Preference

of

Phasing

Or&in Rdemnmof Plu8ino

AnsI0

I A

llIE@(0.9S3),120"(0.807
),W"(0.725),6@(0.637),
O"(O.433)

IlBO"(0.686),12
0"(0.622),90"(0.S
99),6
&( O.664),O"(O.42O)

ll:2@(l.175),9&
(1.164),{B&(l.l16
),18@(l.
O8O),O"(O.898)

tl2~(o.463),9~(o.469),:l8V(o.4s4),6~(o.449),o"(o.4l)

191@(l.0W),60"(l.
0W),l:2@(0.970),
W(O.887),l8O"(O.777)

191@(0.426),W"(0.4~
),l:2&(0.422),~
(O.4W),l8O"(O.397)

161~(0.974),9W(0.965
),l:2&(Oo
9l7),@(O.875),l8@(O.7O4)

l18@(0.82T),12~(0.T~),

lI8O"(l.35l),l2O"(l.387),W(l.272),6@(l.l68),O"(O.843)

[ A

~(0.640),6~(O0565),

Tab.2 TheCanpuition
cdMinimumUn&lmlM@ between
Tuiq%tqu(42)
W* KimBs equ(41)

W(O.399)

]180W).656),120Y0.6
19),W(0.592),6&(
O.5S9),O"(O.689)

l120"(l.l10),9&
(l.M9),~5&(l.
05),18W(l.
Ol5),@(O.8M)

16@(0.489),M"(0.486),
@(0.880),12@(0.876),18
&(O.855)

1500

IFW<O(3000)* I 138.4(1194)I

10
.

9@(0.941),60X0.
940),MY(0. 904),&(0.
821),180Y0.
711)

0(0.
S70),6tY(0.
36S),90(0.
854),120K0.337),180(0.
285)

60(0.
91),90(0.
901),120K0.
658),0(0.
810),18@
(0.640)

180X0.669),120Y0.
606),80K0.
564),6&(0.517),&(O.368)

180(1.
272),120(1.
259),90(1.
194),6V(L08),@(0.765)

120X0.396),9(P(0.
286),16W0.89),180(0.
379),~(0.
S60)

120YL 031),90(1.
020),160(0.
97),180Y0.
986),0(0.
754)

0(0.
350),60(0.
806),90(0.
276),120K0.24),180Y0.149)

W(O. 864),6W(0.868),120(0.
826),0Y0.
744),180Y0.
634)

0(0.
840),60(0.
281),90(0.
24S),12W0. 199),180(0.
101)

60Y0.882),80Y0.628),12W0. 774),0(0.
783)9160Y0.
552)

0.01 .

0.525
20
0.1

0.01

Bwftutb

oomtItiom\thatdauued

&mei#P-4ht0dtiu

aQ8h

fw-hw---wK4l)

21.1(475) I

3.3(189) I

U~
~IIW
withMMrab.ame~
(~-1).
oa,z-1,Tr-87a,r:
-1.78,rl-o.
61m--o.
2SYB-0
6)

R(bmm)
20

17.9(20.
7)

8.2(8.2)

8. $(8.8)

l.a(l.
a)

80

20.4(20.
7)

8.2(6.2)

& 8(8.a)

1.8(1.s)

40

20.6(20.
7)

8.2(8.2)

s.a(a.a)

1.s(1.3)

mh~m-qu(41)
Tsb.4 ~~

U~~timMM~

(P-O.05,2-0.8S,T,-400K,r1.9mn,rl-0.
7om,K@U-O.

16, Y,-O.

8)

Pr(MFs)
20

2w20. 7)

2@(802)

6.4(8.a)

2.4(1.8)

80

aowo. 7)

18.6(8.2)

6.2(8.8)

2.4(1.8)

40

40X20.7)

16.9(8.2)

6.1(S.3)

2.a(l.3)

AtiomeofuMuffW~~
*2Qwain MzahMamtmmqu(41)

nLPI

Ha
I@

9
.
Fig.1

No-ograph
(Perforation

of

PR

in

Perforated

Length Less Than

217

Gas

Damwed

Uell
Depth)

)8

_
Fi.g.2 Nomograph

of PR

(Perforation

Pluduwvilyn@10

in

Perforated

Length Great Than Damaged

(m)
,

,
&

Gas

Well
Depth)

(m
I

PfOduomtyndO

i !(ZS
lwm

l.t
-

DA

0.4

-o

0s -

8AII

0.9 -

:Ottmomm

too

aoo

IOm=lMmm
O.a

400

MO

RftOmtlm Lm@ll

(roll

000

700

O1oo

zoo

m
400
600
nrtwmtlonmmth(mm)

000 700

MO
m@4 TmDcU?Wot~vlty
vuMPWtDftibrl bUlhAMmM18w

4k

------

lE