Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

The Effect of Perforating

Conditions on Well Perfonnance


Harry O. McLeod Jr.. SPE. Conoco Inc'

Summary
These general terms. sand Dq. are evaluated by transient pressure testing. or they can be determined by
multirate flow tests. They provide a measure of total additional pressure drop caused by wellbore damage and
turbulent flow. In evaluating well completions or proposing a certain way of perforating. we need a more
specific relationship to well bore geometry and condition.
By analyzing the effect of perforations on well flow
from experimental parameters from laboratory perforation tests. 3 one can show the dominating influence of
real perforations on wellbore pressure drops in a highpermeability formation. These same procedures also can
be used for low-permeability formations; however. the
perforation effect is not as striking as in a high-permeability formation.
Fig. I shows a simple schematic of a perforation connected to the wellbore. Around each perforation made in
rock there exists a compacted zone with a thickness of
about 0.5 in. (1.25 cm) ..,.) The permeability of this
compacted zone will vary from 10 to 25 % of the
permeability of the rock just before perforating. The
compaction takes place when the hole is created by the
impact of the disintegrated shaped charge metal liner.
The permeability can be reduced further by the presence
of dirty perforating fluids or drilling mud. particularly
when pressure forces fluid into the perforation. For a
perforated well. the factor D is defined as follows .

The productivity of a perforated gas well is affected


strongly by non-Darcy or turbulent flow through the
compacted zone around each perforation. The turbulence
coefficient depends on the permeability of this compacted zone. This pemleability. a function of perforation
condition. can be used with perforation dimensions to
predict gas well performance.

Introduction
Recent work by Jones ('( al. I and Mach ef al. 2 describes
pressure drop in turbulent flow through gravel-packed
perforations. No method ha~ been presented yet to
describe similarly turbulent /low in perforated wells that
are not gravel packed. Thi~ paper presents an approach
to this problem. It can be u~ed to analyze producing gas
wells. or it can be combined with flowing well analysis 2
to calculate the perforJtion~ needed to complete a gas
well in a consolidated or competent formation.

The General Radial Gas Flow Equation


Gas flow into a perforated ",ell can be described by the
well-known equation

. [I n ( 0 .4 72

1',

ir" ) +.1+ Dq ].

....... (I )
-7
D-~.22(10)

The skin factor. s. accounts for viscous flow through the


damaged zone around the wellbore. including the effects
of perforations. The term Dq accounts for the extra
pressure drop as a result of turbulent gas flow around the
wellbore. Other terms are defined in the Nomenclature.

-1)(

i3,,1'

n-L"rl'

)(kRh)

.......

(2)

!l

This equation is developed in Appendix A along with the


equation defining i3

"I"

01492136183100110649$0025
Copy"ghl 1983 Soclely of Pelroleum Engineers of AI ME

21

Klotz et al. 3 pointed out that the permeability of the


compacted zone is less than the wel1bore permeability,
which has been reduced by drilling fluid and cement
filtrates. For example, if the wellbore permeability is
40% of the original reservoir permeability, the
permeability of the compacted zone may be 10% of th.e
wellbore permeability, or 4 % of the reservOir
permeability.
An example of calculating gas well drawdown is
presented in Appendix B and demonstrates the application 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 BJJ. is nearly
constant above 4,000 psia (27 600 kPa). Below 4,000
psia (27 600 kPa), the multiple JJ.Z is more nearly constant, and Eq. I is preferred. Eq. I is satisfactory for
high pressure if the pressure drawdown is less than 1,000
psi (6895 kPa).

PR-P"f=

141.2qJJ.B g

kRh

In(0.472r e lr".)+s+Dq ,

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

where
q = gas flow rate, MscflD (std m 3 Id),
B g = reservoir volume factor, res bbl/Mscf
(res m 3 /std m 3), and

Fig. 1-Flow into a perforation.

........................ (S)

The effective laminar skin factor, s, can be expressed


as a sum of independent skin factors resulting from perforation geometry (s p), well bore damage from drilling
and cementing (Sd), and the damage to the compacted
zone around the perforation (Sdp)'

P
The terms sand D are the same as in Eq. I.

Application of Proposed Equations


There may be an error uf 20 % or less in calculating productivity of a perforated completion with Eqs. 5 and 6;
however , they are more convenient to use than the7 more
nearly accurate nomographs of Hong 6 or Locke. They
are appropriate to use in the analysis of perforated completions and in the design of well perforating, especially
for high-permeability gas wells. The equations are also
convenient for programming and use in flowing well
analysis 2 to predict the flow rate from a gas well. This
approach is verified by analyses of several perforated gas
wells as presented in the following.

S=Sp +sd +Sdp' ........................... (4)

The perforation geometry skin factor, S p' is found from


several correlations that exist in the literature. 6 9 The
easiest to use are those of Hong 6 or Locke. 7
The following equation for the damaged wellbore is
derived for radial flow into a wellbore and is well known
in the literature. 10

Well A
This well was the first to show the impact of perforation
condition on the performance of a gas well in a highpermeability formation. The well was completed in a
200-md formation and was perforated in an IS-Ibm/gal
(2160-kg/m3) mud with a 3~-in. (8-cm) gun at 2 shots/ft
(2 shots/0.3 m). When production started at about 8,000
MscflD (229 090 std m 3 Id), the pressure drop, or
drawdown, into the well bore was about 1,100 psi (7580
kPa). More than 90% of this pressure drop was through
the compacted zone around each perforation, and more
than 80 % of this pressure drop through the perforation

The next equation for the compacted zone around the


perforation also can be derived from the radial flow
equation.

~) ......... (6)
kd

22

TABLE 1-FLOWING GAS WELL DATA. WELL A

q. Mscf/D
PR' psia
Pw',' psia
j,P, psia
P, psia

z
B, res bbl/Mscf
cp
k dP ' md
/1,

7.152
12,315
11,458
857
11,887
1.55
0.463
0.0380
5.1

8.080
10,177
9,070
1,107
9,624
1.38
0.506
0.034
5.3

7,739
8,625
7,691
934
8,158
1.26
0.548
0.031
6.1

5,178
6,365
5,915
450
6,140
1.10
0.636
0.0265
6.7

4,850
5,815
5,260
555
5,538
1.05
0.673
0.0245
5.2

4,895
5,565
5,082
483
5,324
1.04
0.693
0.0240
6.1

P wf is calculated from surface pressure

area was caused by non-Darcy or turbulent flow.


This well was analyzed with the flow data in Table I
and the completion data in Table 2. A preliminary
analysis showed that turbulent flow controlled the
pressure drop through the completion (mud-damaged
perforations). The perfomtions' damaged compacted
zone provided more than 90% of the total pressure
drawdown. Flow rate and pressure data (Table I) were
available from production tests made over a period of 12
months. These data were analyzed with Eqs. 2. 3, and 6
through 8 by assuming that s" and .I'd were negligible.
The gas propeny data and calculated compacted-zone
permeability, k "'" also are shown in Table I. The results
are surprisingly consistent and confirm the turbulence effect since data were analyzed at two different flow mtes
of 5.000 and 8,000 Mscf/D (143 180 and 229 090 std
m'/d). The perforation permeability. kd". is 2.5 to 3%
of original or undamaged formation permeability. and
this is consistent with labomtory measurements on cores
perforated in mud with pressure filtration into the core.

TABLE 2-WELL A DATA


Formation permeability. md'
Net pay, perforated, ft
Estimated drainage radius, r., ft
Wellbore radius, ft
Shots/ft, nih
Radius of perforated hole, r p' in:'
Perforation penetration, Lp, in."
Gas gravity
Formation temperature, OF
Estimated from Sidewall core data
'Estlmated from APt perforallng data

s"

Locke's correlation 7 was used to tind an


of 1.7 for
4 shots/ft (13 shots/m). 4 in. (10.1 em) deep, at 0 phasing. This is very close to the s of 1.8 obtained by well
testing that indicates that
and .1''''' are near zero;
therefore, little or no damage existed at the time of
testing around the perforated holes (i.e., k"" =k" =
kR=8.6 md).
One can calculate the near-perforation permeability independently with the non-Darcy parameter, D, with Eqs.
2 and 3.

s"

Well B
This California well was perforated in brine with an
underbalance of 500 psi (3450 kPa). A I ~kin. (4-cm)
through-tubing gun perforated 4 shots/ft (13 shots/m) at
0 phasing. This well was completed in 1972 and has
been tested several times since to determine gas reserves
in this single-well reservoir. Two excellent pressurebuildup tests have been made following semi steady-state
flow periods at two different flow rates. Analyses of
these pressure-buildup tests provided the following data.

D=0.0015=2.22(10) -15
=2.22(10) -15

~",,~

(kRh)

(O.6){3""

J.I.

(140) ~ (0.33) 2 (0.0 104)

.(o~:J ...........................

Rate
5.250
3.300

I1-L"-r,,

Year
1977
197H

200
26
1,320
0.375
2
0.19
9
0.635
245

(9)

9.6
6.7

Solving for {3 d", we obtain

With these two data points, sand D were calculated to be


1.8 and 0.0015 per thousand standard cubic foot per day
(standard cubic meter per day), respectively. The net pay
of 35 ft (107 m) was perforated in a gross interval at
7.447 to 7.502 ft (2270 to 2287 m) through 2%-in.
(6-cm) tubing, with an original bottomhole pressure
(BHP) of 3,555 psia (24 510 kPa).
API perforating data were used to estimate perforation
hole size. L" was 4 in. (10.2 em). orO.33 ft (0.1 m), and
was 0.125 in. (0.3 em), or 0.0104 ft (0.0032 m).
Viscosity of the 0.6-gravity gas was estimated to be
0.021 cp (21 x JO -6 Pa' s). These data were used to
calculate the permeability of the near-perforation rock.

(3""

1.75( 10)9 ft
=2.6(10)10

k",,-1.2.* ................... (10)

k"" =9.5 md.


This is very close to but slightly higher than the 8.6 md
found from the pressure-buildup tests. If the perforation
penetration is changed slightly from 4 to 4.2 in. (10.2 to
10.7 em), the calculated
equals 8.6 md exactly.

r"

k""

',3d" =7.93(10) '0

23

m-'

TABLE 3-WELL COAT A

Klotz el al.' for a well perforated overbalanced in


filtered brine.
Additional data used in the preceding calculations are
given in Table 3.

0.6
0.25

Gas gravity, "I


Perforation radius in rock, r p' in.
Radius of compacted zone around
perforation, r dp' in.
Gas flow rate, q, Mscf/D
Net pay, h, ft
Viscosity, /l, cp

0.25+0.5=0.75
6,240
16
0.0218

Wells D and E
Data were obtained* from offset wells completed in the
Wilcox-Slick fonnation in Live Oak County, TX. Well
D was perforated with a 1'lj6-in. (4-cm) through-tubing
gun and with a pressure underbalance of 800 psi (5515
kPa). Well E was perforated with a 3Ys-in. (8.6-cm)
tubing-run gun and with a pressure underbalance of
2,085 psi (14 375 kPa). Data provided or estimated are
shown in Table 4.
No pressure-buildup test data or core data were
available. The flow data from Well E were used to
calculate a fonnation penneability of 70 md by assuming
that kc1k=1 for the perforation zone (i.e., kdp=kd=
0.5k R ). This assumes ideal perforating. Then Well D
was evaluated with a kR of 70 md, and a kdplkd of 0.4
was found for a perforation length of 4.3 in. (10.9 cm).
Although the penneability data are not absolute, the
equations in this paper offer a way to evaluate perforating results when different perforating techniques are
used. Both these perforation jobs were weli executed
with excellent results: however, the comparison shows
that perforating underbalanced with a large gun provides
a much more efficient completion.

This analysis shows that no pennanent damage was


created by this underbalanced perforating technique. It
also shows that clean, small perforations still can restrict
flow in a gas well because of non-Darcy flow into small
perforations. This restriction can be removed or greatly
reduced by more or larger perforations.

Well C
An offshore Louisiana gas well was perforated overbalanced by 200 psi (1380 kPa) in brine with 8 shots/ft
(26 shots/m) in the top 12 ft (3.7 m) of a 16-ft (4.9-m)
pay zone. The penneability was computed to be 318 md
from a pressure-buildup test after a four-point flow test
upon completion of the zone. The skin, s' =5 + D q' was
11.15. It was assumed that 5 =5 dl" so that

5'=5+D q = 5dl' +Dq = 11.15 ................ (11)


Eqs. 2, 3, and 6 were combined with Eq. 1 to get one
equation with one unknown, k dp ' This was found to be
as follows for two assumed perforation lengths.

Results of Perforation Analysis


Table 5 summarizes the perforation conditions calculated
from example well data and matches those numbers
recommended by Klotz et al. 3 except for Well B. The
tests on Well B took place 5 and 6 years after completion. At that point any damage that occurred during perforating had disappeared. perhaps by gas flow drying out
and/or eroding the compacted zone. Flow tests made im-

Penneanilit\
Ratio. k.le Ik' R

0.165
Q.()Q

This is in the range of perforation condition proposed by

Winters. G.A.: personal commUnication. GeoVann Inc .. (Oct.1981)

TABLE 4-WELL PERFORATING AND FLOW TEST DATA,


WELLS 0 AND E

Perforation Data
Tubing gun 00, in.
Shots/ft
Phasing, degrees
Pressure underbalance, psi
Distance perforated, ft
Perforation radius, , p' in.'
Perforation length, L p ' in.'
Perforation geometry, skin factor
Well Data
Flow rate, q, Mscf/D
Shutin BHP, psia
Flowing BHP, psia
Pressure drawdown, psi
Temperature, OR
Gas gravity'
Gas viscosity, cp'
Gas deviation factor, Z'
Drainage radius, ft
Wellbore radius, ft
Wellbore damage permeability ratio, k d1k R
Estimated data

24

Well D

Well E

19/ 16
4

3%

800
10
0.14
4
1.8

120
2,085
10
0.2
9
0

1,676
2,562
2,154
408
580
0.65
0.025
0.9
660
0.35
0.5

2,127
2,553
2,437
116
580
0.65
0.025
0.9
660
0.35
0.5

mediately after completion showed a lower productivity


that gradually improved, but this early improvement is
attributed to cleanup of brine and filtrate from the
wellbore. This raises the question, "How long does perforation damage persist in a producing well?" We know
that it persisted at least 1 year in Well A. Tests on Wells
C, D, and E took place shortly after completion and provide no answer to this question.
Data from Ref. 3 (Fig. 6 and Table 1) are summarized
here in Table 6 and may be used for perforation design
based on expected completion conditions. The
permeability ratios, kclk, are based on labordtory data
measured on cores perforated under different conditions.
The ratio kdplkR is probably equal to kc1k for wells perforated in mud in Table 6 even though the wellbore
previously has been damaged by mud filtrate. Actual
kd/k R values for the other conditions are not that clear,
and experimental work is needed on perforating cores
that previously have been damaged by mud and cement
filtrate. It is my opinion that k"l' =(k,.lk) xk" for the
brine-perforated wells. If so. the wellbore condition as a
result of drilling and cementing is a significant factor
even when excellent perforating procedures are used.
Not enough is known about the effect of drilling fluid
'and cement filtrates on various sandstones. Up to this
time, the effects of drilling and perforating all have been
lumped into one skin factor when a well is tested. I hope
that the approach presented in this paper will allow
separation of the effects of drilling and cementing from
perforating so that more rational and economical decisions can be made on the drilling and completing of oil
and gas wells.
After a well is drilled, ca~cd and cemented, an
engineer can use the technique pre).ented here to select
the best perforating procedures and size and number of
shots to complete a well for optimal perfomlance. He
can recommend more care and expen).e in perforating to

bring in a natural completion, or he can recp!llmend less


expense on well preparation and perforating in favor of
the subsequent expense and risk of remedial acidizing, or
other forms of stimulation. Current field practices and
well response to remedial stimulation are important considerations in this decision.

Other Implications of
Perforation Analysis
Although the equations used here offer a simplified approach to damage around the wellbore, they do pinpoint
the location of significant damage that greatly restricts
oil and gas production.
The most significant damage around the wellbore in a
completed well is that small damaged zone around each
perforation that is only about 0.5 in. (1.3 cm) thick. This
suggests that acidizing need only remove the damage
within this thin cylinder around the perforation but that
acid must remove the damage from all the perforations to
be effective. Therefore, adequate diverting agents for
acids are necessary to acidize high-rate completions in
high-permeability reservoirs adequately. Moreover,
because of the thin damage zone around each perforation, the contact time of the acid with the perfQration is
more important than the total volume of acid pumped into the formation. Large vqlumes of acid pumped quickly
through a few perforations will be an inefficient use of
acid and will give results that are either short-lived or unsatisfactory. Using low injection rates and effective
diverting agents should remove all damage around
perforations.
In most wells that Conoco Inc. operates, the
permeabilities are low enough that reservoir flow controls production rate, and fracturing is needed to make
these wells economical: however, along the U.S. gulf
coast the permeabilities are very high, and the greatest
loss of pressure during flow is a.t the well bore . This is the

TABLE 5-SUMMARY OF PERFORATION CONDITION, EXAMPLE WELLS

kdfkR

Perforating Fluid

Perforating
Fluid Pressure
(psi)

0.5
0.5

weighted mud
brine
brine
brine
brine

+500
-500
+200
-800
-2,085

kR

Well
-

B
C

D
E

(md)

ka/k R

200
8.6
318
70
70

0.03
1
0.09 to 0.165
0.20
0.5

kaplka

0.4
1.0

TABLE 6-GUIDELINES FOR THE EFFECT OF PERFORATING


CONDITIONS ON PERFORATION QUALITY

Perforation Parameters

Perforating Conditions
Fluid
high solids, mud in
low solids, mud in hole
unfiltered salt water
filtered salt water
filtered salt water
clean, nondamaging fluid,
best techniques available
clean, nondamaging, ideal
perforator

+
+

+
+

25

Core Flow
Efficiency
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.7

0.8

0.01
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.15

to
to
to
to
to

0.03
0.04
0.06

0.9

0.30 to 0.50

1.0

1.00 to 1.00

0.16
0.25

rd" = radius of compacted zone around perfora-

zone with which we as well completion engineers are


concerned. The type of equations presented and other
similar ones can be very helpful to us in designing completions. Focusing on the flow either into or out of perforations that exist around the wellbore should help us in
the design and selection of completion fluids; fluid loss
control additives for completion fluids; gravel packing
with viscous, gelled fluids; acidizing; and plastic sand
consolidation.

r"

r;

r", =

s"

Conclusions
1. In actual perforated oil and gas wells, the long-held
rule of thumb that 4 shots/ft (13 shots/m) with 6-in.
(1S.2-cm) penetration is equivalent to an openhole completion is not valid.
2. The use of the openhole equivalent wellbore used in
well testing to describe non-Darcy flow into a perforated
well is inadequate and should be discarded.
3. The turbulence coefficient data provided by Katz et
al. 11-12 can be used to describe pressure losses during
non-Darcy flow into a wellbore when the number,
physical geometry, and condition of real perforations are
considered.
4. The geometry of perforations can be designed and
dimensions can be estimated from data provided by perforating service companies.
5. The guidelines provided by Klotz et al. 3 are valid
and can be used to estimate permeabilities of the compacted zone around a perforation for different perforating
fluids and pressure differentials.
6. Well performance, perforating procedures. and onsite inspection of perforating operations can be analyzed
to define perforation condition in a well more accurately.
7. The model presented can be used with flowing well
analysis to predict the economic effects of perforating
conditions and the number and size of perforations so
that engineers and production managers can make more
rational decisions.

Nomenclature
B Ii = gas formation volume factor, res bbl/Mscf
(res m 3 I std m 3 )
D = rate parameter for non-Darcy flow,
\/(MscflD) (d/std m 3 )
h
net pay. ft (m)
k Jk = ratio of the permeability of a perforation's
compacted zone to the permeability of a
core before perforating (from API testing)
k" = permeability of damaged zone around
wellbore as a result of invasion by
drilling mud and cement filtrates, md
permeability of damaged, compacted zone
around perforation in rock, md
k R = reservoir permeability, md
L" = length of perforation in rock, ft (m)
n
total number of perforations
P R = average reservoir pressure (bottomhole static
pressure), psia (kPa)
PlIf = flowing BHP, psia (kPa)
q ;;;;; gas flow rate. MscflD (std m 3 Id)
== radius of damaged zone around wellbore,
ft (m)

k"" ; ; ;

r"

s I"

s"

T =
~

{3 =

/' ;;;;;
iJ. ;;;;;

tion. ft (m)
.
well drainage radius in reservoir. ft (m)
radius of perforation in rock, ft (m)
wellbore radius (half of bit diameter). ft (m)
overall skin factor for viscous or laminar
Darcy flow through restrictions around
wellbore, dimensionless
skin factor for flow through damaged zone
around we\lbore caused by drilling mud
and cement filtrates
skin factor for flow through damaged and
compacted zone around perforation
skin factor for effect of flow converging
into perforations around wellbore
formation temperature. OR (K)
gas deviation factor, dimensionless
velocity coefficient (for effects of turbulent
or non-Darcy flow through porous
media), 11ft (11m)
gas gravity, dimensionless
viscosity, cp (Pa' s)

Acknowledgments
I am grateful to the management of Conoco Inc. for permission to publish this paper and to the many coworkers
who helped with suggestions and contributed field data,
especially Daryl Fontenot. Bob Burton, Richard Siebenman. Randy Crawford. and Bert Walther.

References
1. Jones, L.G., Blount. E.M .. and Glaze, O.H.: "Use of ShortTerm Multiple-Rate Flow Tests To Predict Pertormance of Wells
Having Turbulence," paper SPE 6133 presented at the 1976 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. New Orleans. Oct.
3-6.
2. Mach. J .. Proano. E .. and Brown. K.E.: "Application of Production Systems Analysis to Determine Completion Sensitivity on
Gas Well Completion." paper 81Pet-13 presented at the ASME
Energy Sources Technical Conference, Houston. Jan. 18-22.
1981.
3. Klotz. J.A .. Krueger. R.F .. and Pye. D.S.: "Effect of Perforation
Damage on Well Productivity," 1. Pel. Tech. (Nov. 1974)
1303-14: Trails .. AIME. 257.
4. Saucier. RJ. and Lands. J.F. Jr.: "A Labordtory Study of Perforations in Stressed Formation Rocks." 1. Pel. Tc'c!1. (Sept.
1978) 1347-53: Trails .. AIME. 265.
5. Bell. W.T .. Brieger. E.F .. and Harrigan. J.W. Jr.: "Labordtory
Flow Characteristics of Gun Perforations, '. 1. Pel. Tech. (Sept.
1972) 1095-1103.
6. Hong, K.C.: "Productivity of Perforated Completions in Formations With or Without Damage," 1. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1975)
1027-38: Trails .. AIME. 259.
7. Locke. S.: .. An Advanced Method for Predicting the Productivity
Ratio of a Perforated Well." 1. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1981) 2481-88.
8. Harris. M.H.: "How to Estimate Production from Ultrddeep Perfordtions. Oil alld Gas 1. (Jan. I. 1968) 88-91.
9. Harris, M.H.: "The Effect of Pert'orating on Well Productivity."
1. Pet. Tech. (April 1966) 518-28: TraIlS .. AIME. 237.
10. Matthews. C.S. and Russell. D.G.: Pn',lsure Buildup lind Floit'
Tests in Wells, Monogrdph Series. SPE. Dallas (1967) 1. 21.
II. Katz. D.L. el al.: Handhook of Natural Gas Elll!illeerilll!,
McGraw-Hili Book Co. Inc .. New York City (1959) 405.
12. Firoozabadi. A. and Katz. D.L.: "An Analysis of High-Velocity
Gas Flow Through Porous Media," 1. Pel. Tech. (Feb. 1979)
211-16.

26

APPENDIX A

The total pressure drop with this damaged zone around


an ideal wellbore is now 68 psi (469 kPa). 'still much less
than the actual 1,100 psi (7580 kPa) found for Well A.
Eq. A-5 was derived from Eq. A-2 for the extra
pressure drop caused by turbulent flow into the cylindrical zone around the perforation. It assumes that flow
is distributed equally to all perforations. with a uniform
flux along each perforation.

Flow Into a Gas Well


In a high-permeability reservoir (100 md or greater), the
pressure drop from the drainage boundary to near the
well bore is small compared with the pressure drop of gas
flow into damaged perforations. Flow into an undamaged we II bore (equivalent to an ideal openhole completion)
can be calculated with the radial gas flow equation,

1,424J,tz Tq
----[lnO.472(r e lr w )] .

...

(A-I)

Lp

kRh

r~p)'

Eq. A-I and data from Well A in Appendix B give a


drawdown of 28 psi (193 kPa) through the reservoir with
undamaged permeability.
Eq. A-I is for viscous or laminar flow. Nonlaminar
flow. or visco-inertial flow. as it is sometimes called, occurs in gas reservoirs. The additional pressure drop
caused by these gas-velocity effects are higher near the
wellbore. Previous studies of this effect considered the
pressure drop into an idealized openhole completion.
Katz et al. II presented an equation describing turbulent
or visco-inertial flow:

(A-5)

where

n
number of perforations,
Lp = length of perforation in formation, ft (m),
rp = radius of perforation, ft (m), and
r dp =

1,424J,tz Tq
----[ln0.472(r e 1r II')]

radius of compacted zone around perforation. ft (m) (see Fig. I).

The turbulence coefficient. {3. is a function 'of the reduced permeability around the perforation, k dp ' according to Eq. A-3.
Eq. A-5 can be related to the general radial flow equation (Eq. I) to express D in terms of perforation dimensions and properties of the compacted zone around the
perforation:

kRh

(I I)

~ I' q-zT
~
3.161(10) - I -{3
--+
rw re.

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

. ... (A-2)

h2

This equation using laboratory-derived values of {3 has


not matched the effects seen in actual practice. For instance. in the preceding example, turbulence from gas
flow through a 200-md sand into an open hole wellbore
will produce an added pressure drop of only 1 psi
(7 kPa).
The turbulence coefficient used in Eq. A-2 can be
computed from
(3 =2.6(1 0) 10k -\.2.

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

D=2.22(lO)

15

(kRhl')
J,t

[~(~ _ _
I )].
n

Lp

rp

rdp

.... '................. (A-6)

If we neglect IIr dp. we obtain

(A-3)

D=2.22(1O)-15 (kRhl') (
/I

This equation was derived from the straight-line plot of


the data provided by Firoozabadi and Katz. 12
One can modify this equation further by adding a
damaged zone around the wellbore such that kd is equal
to 0.1 kR' where the damaged zone has a thickness of
0.5 ft (0.15 m). so that the damaged zone radius is equal
to 0.5+r".=0.875 ft (0.267 m).

(3dP~

n 2 Lp ~r p

) .....

(A-7)'

The last group of variables can be called a perforation


factor (PF), so that

PF=:=

wLp~rp

......................... (A-8)

This factor is defined by perforation dimensions and


permeability of the compacted zone. It is a convenient
factor to use in preliminary flowing well analysis before
specific perforation dimensions are estimated from API
perforation test data.
Neglecting IIr dp introduces an error, especially for
large-diameter perforations. This results in a higher
calculated pressure drop than the actual, but the error is
offset partially because turbulent flow also occurs outside the compacted zone in a region of somewhat higher
permeability.

. [In(0.472r('lrl\') + (:: -1)ln(r{t/r w )]


3.16I(lO)-12 W 2 Z T

+----------~--h2

. (A-4)

27

TABLE A1-PREDICTED PRESSURE DROPS-WELLBORE MODEL VS.


PERFORATION MODEL (psia)
Pressure
Laminar
Skin

Turbulent
Skin

Model

Reservoir

Ideal, undamaged wellbore


Damaged open hole wellbore
kef =20 md
kef =5 md
Perforated well bore
Damaged perforations
(k d = 50 md, k dp = 5 md)
Ideal perforations, damaged
well bore (k d :: 50 md)
Ideal completion
(k efp = k d = k R 200 md)

28

28
28

29
126

11
55

68
209

28

143

1,073

1,246

28

17

64

109

28

12

42

Total
29

around each perforation, with any turbulent losses in the


radial wellbore away from the perforations ignored. The
data in Table BI are used for these calculations.

The penneability of the compacted zone around the


perforation is usually much lower than the penneability
around the wellbore because of the compaction caused
by the perforating process. 3.5 This penneability, k dp ' in
Well A was found to be 5 to 6 md, only 2.5 to 3% of the
fonnation penneability. The extra pressure drop caused
by turbulent flow in Well A at 8,080 MscflD (231 382
std m 3 /d) is calculated to be 1.073 psi (7398 kPa) with
Eqs. A-3 and A-5 (neglecting the factor lIr dp)'
Table A-I compares the extra pressure drop caused by
turbulent flow through the rock around the wellbore as
calculated with Eqs. A-I through A-5. It is obvious that
both the limited inflow area of perforations and the low
penneability of the damaged, compacted zone around
the perforation increase greatly the pressure drop from
non-Darcy (turbulent) gas flow.

Laminar Flow Skin


. Perforation Geometry.
Sp

0.45 (see Ref. 7).

Wellbore Damage From Drilling.

APPENDIX B
200

Example Pressure Drop Calculations


for a Perforated Well

The following is a calculated example to show what can


be expected from well-perforating condition. The turbulent pressure drop is calculated only for the zone

= 3.9.

TABLE B1-DATA FROM WELL A USED FOR EXAMPLE


PRESSURE DROP CALCULATIONS
Gas flow rate, q, MscflD
Formation temperature, T, OF
Gas deviation factor, Z
Viscosity, #'-' cp
Reservoir permeability, k R' md
Net pay, h, It
Well drainage radius in reservoir, r e' It
Wellbore radius, r w' in.
Average reservoir pressure, P R' psia
Permeability of damaged zone around wellbore,
kef, md
Permeability of damaged, compacted zone
around perforation in rock, k dp' md
Shots/It
Phasing, degrees
Perforation penetration into formation, L p ' It
Perforation diameter, in.
Compacted zone thickness, in.

TABLE B2-EXAMPLE WELL WITH MUD


DAMAGED PERFORATIONS-BREAKDOWN
OF FLOWING PRESSURE DROPS

8,080
245
1.415
0.035
200
26
1,320
4.5
10,177

,lp2
Flow Path
reservoir
laminar skin
turbulent skin

PR

~
2.41
11.46
86.13
100

0.25k R =50
0.1 kd=5

2
180
0.75
0.38
0.5

'In this example. gas properties are evaluated at the reServoir pressure.
",d =

50

1.375
I) In-0.375

10.177psia
1.375 ft. and' w =0.375 11

28

Approximate
Pressure Drop
(psi)
30
143
1,073
1,246

Perforation Compacted, Damaged Zone.

Sdp

(n:

::)In(:;)

)(:;

(1.424)(0.035)(1.415)(755)(8,080)
(200)(26)

26
(200 200) (0.19+0.5)
(52)(0.75) -5- - 50 In
0.19

1,320
[ In(0.472)-0.375

= 30.95.

+ 35.3 +(0.03285)(8,080)]

Combined Laminar Skin, s.

= 77.256 (7.42+35.3+265.4)
= 0.45+3.9+30.95
=

35.3

77,256 (308.1)

Turbulence Parameter, D

p."! = 8,931 psia (61 577 kPa).

f3

2.6(10) 10k

I.~

1.246 psi (8591 kPa).

= 2.6(10) 10(5) -I.~

15(

D=2.22(IO)

,f3y,
n-Lp-rl'

s[
= 2.22(10) - I .

Table 8-2 summarizes the pressure drop through the


reseIVoir and the damaged zones. Turbulent flow
pressure drop through the compacted damaged zone
around the perforation is by far the most significant.

)(kRh)
J.I.

"J.77( IO)~(o.635)

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl
ep
ft
OF
in.
psi
sef

(52)~(0.75)2(0.0158)

. [(200)(26) ]
0.035
= 0.03285.

x 1.589873
E-OI
x 1.0*
E-03
x 3.048*
E-01
(OF-32)/1.8
x 2.54*
E+OO
x 6.894757
E+OO
x 2.86364
E-02

Conversion factor is exact

m3
Pa's
m

C
em
kPa
std m 3

JPT

Calculated Pressure Drop


,

D.p- = PR- -Pllr =

Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office Jan. 5. 1981


Paper accepted for publication Aug. 12. 1982. Revised manuscript received Nov. 17.
1982. Paper (SPE 10649) first presented at the 1982 SPE Formation Damage Control
Symposium held in Lafayette. LA March 24-25.

1.424J.1.::.Tq

kh

29